Mt. Clemens Metal Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 931 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

MT. CLEMENS METAL ' PRODUCTS COMPANY 931
'and Nicholson Terminal employees and services,e we find that East
Detroit and Nicholson Terminal constitute a single Employer within
the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. As such, we further find that
East Detroit is engaged in commerce within the Act's meaning. . Ac-
cordingly, we deny the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition be-
cause the activities of East Detroit, considered alone, are insufficient
for the assertion of our jurisdiction.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree, and we find, that the following employees
of East Detroit constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees employed at East Detroit Stevedore Co.'s Lycaste
Street dock, Detroit, Michigan, but excluding office clerical employ-
ees, guards, confidential employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
The Petitioner requests that if the Board directs an election herein,
and a majority of the East Detroit employees in the unit described
above voting in the election, vote for the Petitioner, that this unit be
consolidated with a unit of Nicholson Terminal dock employees for
which the Petitioner was certified 10 years ago.8 However, no evidence
was adduced at the hearing concerning the present composition of the
unit of the Nicholson Terminal employees the Petitioner seeks to so
consolidate with the East Detroit employees. Thus, from the record
presented to us we are not able to find that the two units involved
may be properly consolidated into a single unit and the Petitioner's
request in this respect is denied.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
e See Venus Die Engineering Company, 110 NLRB 336; Rushville Metal Products, Inc,
107 NLRB 1146.
7 Although it appears from the record that the operations of Nicholson Transit are
to a considerable degree integrated with those of East Detroit and Nicholson Terminal,
it is not necessary for the purposes of this decision for us to make a finding that the
three corporations constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
8 Nicholson Terminal & Dock Co , 49 NLRB 582.
MT. CLEMENS METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY and MT. CLEMENS METAL
PRODUCTS WORKERS' ASSOCIATION (IND.), PETITIONER. Case No.
7-RC-2561. November 18,1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Pisarski, hearing
110 NLRB No. 152.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. The Intervenor has been the recognized bargaining representa-
tive of the Employer's employees since 1948. Prior to August 12,1954,
the expiration date of the initial 2-year term of their most recent con-
tract, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into negotiations for
a new contract. On July 8, 1954, the Employer drew up a memoran-
dum of proposed changes which on July 9 was submitted to, and ap-
proved by, the Intervenor's membership. The Employer was informed
of that fact in a telephone conversation with the Intervenor in the
afternoon of the same day, and agreed at that time to draw up the
agreement along the lines indicated in the memorandum. By letter
dated July 13, and addressed to the Intervenor, the Employer indi-
cated that in view of its then existing vacation schedules it would not
be possible to commence typing the agreement until July 26. In the
meantime, the Petitioner, by letter dated July 22, made its request for
recognition, and although the agreement had apparently been reduced
to writing at about that time, it is clear from the record that no copy
of the agreement was thereafter submitted to the Intervenor for its
approval, and that the parties never in fact executed a formal con-
tract incorporating the proposed changes outlined in the memorandum
of July 8.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, we find, contrary to the Inter-
venor's contention, that when, on August 3, the petition herein was
filed, the parties had failed to renew their old contract, which expired'
at the end of its initial term on August 12, and that no valid agree-
ment had been executed which could effectively constitute a bar to.
this proceeding.2 Moreover, we believe that the facts of this case are
clearly distinguishable from tho situation encountered in a recent de-
cision3 where the Board found the contract to be a bar. In that case,
the parties, after receipt of written notice of approval by the union,
of the employer's memorandum of proposed modifications, considered'
the agreement as having been properly concluded, immediately put
1 Local 1079, international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called the
Intervenor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a contractual'
Interest. It contended that the Petitioner is not a labor organization. We find no merit
in this contention ; the record shows that the Petitioner has officers, a constitution and
bylaws, and is organized for the purpose of collective bargaining concerning wages,
grievances, and working conditions for the Employer's employees Know Corp., 104
NLRB 789
2 Winter Stamping Co, 107 NLRB 14; Wiedemann Machone Company, 100 NLRB 824.
3 Oswego Falls Corp., 110 NLRB 621
MOSS PLANING MILL CO. 933
into effect some of its provisions, and signed a formal contract within
a reasonable time after agreement had been reached. None of these
circumstances are present in the instant case.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Mt. Clemens, Michigan, plant, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, experimental designers, guards,'
and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 The three employees who spend a portion of their time in the performance of usual
watchmen 's duties are excluded as guards within the meaning of the Act. Watterboro
Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383.
MOSS PLANING MILL Co . and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, CIO. Case No. 11-CA-308 (formerly 34-CA-308). Novem-
ber 19,1954
Supplemental Decision and Recommendation
On March 10, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Order' in the
above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter on July 24, 1953, the Order
was enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. The Respondent and the representatives of the Board
were subsequently unable to reach agreement with respect to the
amounts of back pay due Roy E. Fulcher and Lee A. Wynne under
the terms of the decree, and the Board directed that a hearing be held
to resolve the disagreement. Accordingly, a hearing was held before
Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton, who issued t Supplemental Inter-
mediate Report on June 30,1954. As set forth in the copy of the Sup-
plemental Intermediate Report attached hereto, the Trial Examiner
found specific amounts of back pay due Fulcher and Wynne and rec-
ommended that the Respondent reimburse them in accordance with his
findings. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Supplemental Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Sup-
plemental Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the
1 103 NLRB 414.
110 NLRB No. 155.