Perfection Spring and Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 590 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of PERFECTION SPRING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
DISTRICT 54, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-B-24128 .-Decided February 13, 1947
Mr. Henry B. Johnson , of Cleveland , Ohio, for the Employer.
Messrs. Howard Tausoh and Hugh McLean , of Cleveland , Ohio, for
the Petitioner.
Messrs. Stanley Kwiat and Clinton Bell , of Cleveland , Ohio, for the
Intervenor.
Mr. Edmund J. Flynn, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cleveland,
Ohio, on November 12, 1946, before Thomas E. Shroyer, hearing offi-
cer. At the hearing, the Petitioner moved to exclude the Intervenor
from the ballot in any election directed in this proceeding, and the
hearing officer referred this motion to the Board for ruling. In view
of the Intervenor's past contractual relations with the Employer, the
motion is hereby denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT -
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Perfection Spring and Equipment Company, an Ohio corporation
having two plants in Cleveland, Ohio, both of which are involved
in this proceeding, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and servicing
of auto parts. The annual value of the finished products handled by
the Employer is in excess of $250,000, of which approximately 10
percent is shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. The annual
value of raw materials used by the Employer is in excess of $150,000,
of which approximately 25 percent is shipped from points outside the
State of Ohio.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
72 N. L It. B., No. 115. _
590
PERFECTION SPRING AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED ,
591
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 217, herein called the Inter-
venor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Shortly after June 2, 1946, the Petitioner requested the Employer to
recognize it as exclusive bargaining agent of the Employer's employees.
The Employer refused to grant this request. On October 15, 1946,
the Petitioner filed the petition in this proceeding.
On June 2, 1941, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a col-
lective bargaining contract which provided that it was to remain in
effect for 1 year, and from year to year thereafter in the absence of,
written notice to terminate given by either party thirty (30) days
before any anniversary date. The Intervenor contends that this con-
tract, having automatically renewed itself before the Petitioner ad-
vanced its rival claim to representation, constitutes a bar to this pro-
ceeding.
But the record establishes that, since later in 1941, the contract has
not been administered by the Intervenor, and that the Intervenor has
ceased to act as representative of the employees of the Employer.
Since December 1941, there have been no weekly meetings between
the Employer and the Intervenor, as provided in the contract, for the
purpose of presenting grievances. There is no evidence that dues have
been collected by the Intervenor, since 1944. Moreover, the employees,
old and new alike, have been unaware of any activity by the Inter-
venor for well over a year. In 1945, when a wage increase for the
Employer's employees was sanctioned by the Wage Stabilization
Board, the Employer did not consult the Intervenor, and the Inter-
venor did not join in the application for the increase which was filed
with the War Stabilization Board. The Employer knows of no shop
committee, shop steward, or union officers at its Cleveland plants.'
These facts establish that before the 1946 operative date of the
automatic renewal clause in the contract between the Employer and
the Intervenor, the latter had become defunct insofar as the employees
IIn 1944 the Intervenor's shop steward at the Employer's plants was promoted to a
supervisory position and resigned his stewardship At that time he arranged with another
employee to have him serve as acting shop steward It does not appear that this employee
was active in his role as acting shop steward. When, in June or July 1946, the Inter-
venor's business agent and another of its representatives learned that the acting shop
steward was also to be promoted to a supervisory position, they met with the acting shop
steward and an unidentified employee and received promises from the latter that lie would
designate a successor to the acting shop steward So far as the record shows no successor
was ever appointed, nor did the Intervenor take any further steps in the matter.
731242-47-vol. 72--39
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
involved in this proceeding are concerned. At that crucial date, there-
fore, the Intervenor did not truly represent the Employer's employees.
Hence, we are of the opinion that in 1946 the Intervenor was incapable
of renewing the contract in their behalf. We conclude that the 1941
contract is not a bar to a current determination of representatives.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production, maintenance, and service employees at both of the Em-
ployer's Cleveland, Ohio, plants, including watchmen and the ship-
ping clerk, but excluding office employees, truck drivers, sales em-
ployees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section ,9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Perfection Spring and Equip-
ment Company, Cleveland, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate 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 temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they
desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists,
District 54, or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 217, C. I. 0.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
2 Matter of Koppers Company, Inc, Wooil Preseriing Ditiision, 72 N L R B 31
We find it unnecessary to pass upon the Petitioner's contention that the 1941 contract
is a "member-only" agreement and for this reason is no bar to this proceeding