Noblitt-Sparks Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 1501 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of NOBLITT SPARKS INDUSTRIES, INC., and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OP AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 11-R-840.Decided December 21, 1945
Messrs. Carl Wilde and Owen J. Neighbours, of Indianapolis, Ind.,
for the Company.
Messrs. Andrew Jacobs and George Stahl, of Indianapolis, Ind.,
for the CIO.
Messrs. A. T. Conner and Cleo E. Hook, of Columbus, Ind., for the
CIWU.
Mr. Stanley B. Korengold, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that a question af-
fecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Noblitt-Sparks Industries, Inc., Columbus, Indiana, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William O. Mur-
dock, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Columbus, Indiana,
on September 4, 1945. The Company, the CIO, and Columbus In-
dustrial Workers Union, herein called the CIWU, appeared and
participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. At the hearing the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the petition of the CIO. Ruling on the motion was re-
served for the Board. For reasons hereinafter stated, the motion
is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
64 N. L. R. B., No. 244.
1501
1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Noblitt-Sparks Industries, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its
principal office at Columbus, Indiana. During the past year the Com-
pany was engaged in the manufacture of products for the war effort,
but at present is reconverting its manufacturing facilities for the pur-
pose of manufacturing metal furniture, radios, electric heaters, electric
irons, and other electrical appliances. The Company operates several
plants throughout the State of Indiana; the present proceeding, how-
ever, involves only the five plants at Columbus, Indiana. During the
year 1944, the Company purchased for use in its Columbus, Indiana,
plants raw materials valued in excess of $200,000, more than 60 percent
of which came from points outside the State of Indiana. During the
same period, the Company's finished products were valued in excess of
$200,000, practically all of which were shipped to points outside the
State of Indiana.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce -within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
Columbus Industrial Workers Union, unaffiliated, is a labor or-
ganization, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On June 23, 1944, the CIWU and the Company executed a 1-year
contract covering all five plants of the Company in Columbus, Indiana,
embodying the provision that it would be automatically renewed from
year to year thereafter, unless either or both parties gave the other
notice in writing at least 30 days prior to June 23, 1945, of a desire for
changes in or termination of the agreement. The CIWU, on February
17, 1945, notified the Company in writing, that it desired to negotiate
changes in the 1944 contract. Collective bargaining negotiations be-
tween the parties ensued, resulting in a written, but unsigned, agree-
ment on May 22, 1945, covering all five plants. Later on the same
day, J. C. Noblitt, plant manager of the Company's Orinoco plant at
Columbus, Indiana, received a letter from the CIO in which the CIO
NOBLITT-SPARKS INDUSTRIES, INC. 1503
requested that it be recognized as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees of the Company's Orinoco plant. On May 23,
1945, the Company signed the afore-mentioned agreement with the
CIWU, which agreement was to be effective from May 23, 1945, to
May 23, 1946. The following day, May 24, 1945, the CIO notified the
Company by telegram that it desired to amend its earlier request in
that it wished to represent the employees in all five of the Company's
plants at Columbus, Indiana, rather than in only the Orinoco plant.
The Company and the C1WU now contend that the May 23, 1945,
contract operates as a bar to the CIO's petition. They argue that the
CIO's claim of representation on May 22, 1945, although prior to the
execution of the contract, was ineffective because it was predicated
upon a single-plant unit rather than the five-plant unit covered by
the contract and which the CIO had at an earlier date agreed was
appropriate.' They further argue that the CIO's notice to the Com-
pany on May 24, 1945, was untimely because it was not given until'
after the execution of the contract. Assuming however, without de-
ciding, that the CIO's request for recognition on May 22, 1945, was
defective, the 1945 contract still cannot operate as a bar. The 1945
agreement became effective May 23, 1945, 1 month before the expira-
tion date of the 1944 agreement. We have frequently stated that the
accelerated renewal of a contract of reasonable duration for another
like period does not operate as a bar to a claim of representation made
prior to the expiration date of the prior contract.' Inasmuch as the
CIO notified the Company on May 24, 1945, of its claim to representa-
tion of the employees in all five of the Company's plants, we find that
such claim was timely and precludes the 1945 contract from operating
as a bar to this proceeding.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
i On July 10, 1942, the CIWU and the CIO entered into a consent election conducted by
the B eal d , as a result of which the CIwU was certified in a five-plant unit
2 Matter of Virginia-Lincoln Corporation, 63 N L R B. 590 ; Matter of Memphis Furniture
Manufacturing Company, 51 N L R B 1447
S The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 335 authorization cards , that 260
of these cards bore the names of persons appearing on the Company's June 9, 1945, pay
lull , that all cards were dated between April and June 1945 ; and that there are 817 em-
plovees in the alleged appropriate unit
The CIWU relies upon its contract with the Company as evidence of its interest in this
proceeding
1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial accord with a stipulation of the parties, that
all production and maintenance employees of the Company's Colum-
bus, Indiana, plants, excluding clerical employees, engineering em-
ployees, plant protection employees, and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The CIO requests that the Board depart from its normal practice
and use a company pay roll dated prior to August 14, 1945, to deter-
mine eligibility to vote in the election. It contends that the earlier
pay roll would be more appropriate because the termination of the
war caused the Company to lay off many persons whom it will later
reemploy after reconversion has taken place.
The Company, however, takes the position that a departure from
the Board's customary eligibility date is unnecessary, since under its
contract with the CIWU regular employees laid off on account of
lack of work retain their seniority rights for 1 year; thus, all such
employees would be deemed only temporarily laid off and conse-
quently would retain their voting rights under the Board's customary
eligibility rule. We are of the opinion that there is merit in the Com-
pany's contention. We find, therefore, no reason to adopt the eligibil-
ity date requested by the CIO.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Noblitt-Sparks
4 At the hearing, the CIO moved to amend its petition in accoi d with the above stipulation
IVOBLITT-SPARKS INDUSTRIES, INC. 1505
Industries, Inc., Columbus, Indiana, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than sixty (60), days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo-
rarily laid off, and including employees in, the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, CIO, or by Columbus Industrial Workers Union,
unaffiliated, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERRzoc took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
(170417-46-N of (;4--9(;