Sandusky Metal Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 12 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of SANDUSKY METAL PRODUCTS, INC. and AMERICAN
FEDERATION `OF "LABOR
Case No. R_582. -Decided March 16, 1938
Steel Hardware Manufacturing Indnnstry-Inzestigation of Repiesentatives7
cdntroversy concerning representation of employees : rival organizations ; re-
fusal by employer to recognize petitioning union as exclusive representative of
its employees; substantial doubt as to majority status-Unit Appropriate for
Collective Bargaining: all employees except clerical and supervisory employees;
no controversy as to definition of unit-Representatives: proof of choice : ad-
missibility of cards authorizing union to bargain for employees where no em-
ployer is named in card-Election Ordered: employees on pay roll for pay-roll
period next preceding filing of petition eligible to vote-Certification of Repre-
ten tattves.
Mr. Peter Di Leone, for the Board.
Mr. Jesse 'Gallagher, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Lowell M. Goerlich, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Sylvester Garrett, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 5, 1937, American Federation of Labor, herein called
the A. F. of L., filed with the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region (Cleveland, Ohio) a petition alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of, Sandusky Metal Products, Inc.; Sandusky, Ohio,' herein 'called
the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December 21,
1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
On January 19, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the
A. F. of L., and upon Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and
1 The petition and order directing an investigation and hearing incorrectly designated
the Company as "The Sandusky Metal Products Co".
12
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 13
Tin Workers, of North America, Union No. 2052, herein called the
Amalgamated, a labor organization claiming to represent employees
directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice, a
hearing was held on January 28, 1938, at Sandusky, Ohio, before
Waldo C. Holden, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board and the Amalgamated were represented -by counsel and
participated in the hearing. The A. F. of L., represented by its
organizer, likewise participated. The Company was not represented.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner, and except as noted below, finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. With the exception noted below, the rulings are,
hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner sustained an objection by the Amalgamated
to the introduction in evidence of certain cards signed by employees
of the Company, and authorizing the A. F. of L. to represent them
for the purposes of collective bargaining. The ruling was made on
the ground that the cards did not specifically designate the Company
as employer of the men signing. We find that these cards are rele-
vant and material to the issues presented in this case. The cards
are hereby admitted in evidence and made Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE 13USI -NESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale, and distribution of steel houseware products. Its plant
is located at Sandusky, Ohio. Its product is sold directly through
its own sales force, largely to department and furniture stores. The
principal raw materials necessary to the Company's business are
steel and paint. Thirty-four per cent of the former commodity, and
ninety per cent of the latter, are obtained from sources outside of
Ohio. Thirty per cent of the finished product is shipped to cus-
tomers outside Ohio, and t-,yo-thirds of this amount is made to
special order. Total sales by the Company during the year 1937
aggregated $177,745.64.'
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization having
among its members workers from almost all branches of American
industry. Federal Labor Union No. 21183, chartered by the Ameri-
14 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
can Federation of Labor, admits to membership all of the production
employees of the Company.
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of
North America, No. 2052, is a labor organization affiliated with the
Committee for Industrial Organization. It admits to membership
all employees of the Company exclusive of the superintendent,
foreman, and salaried employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Following a strike in the early part of August, the Company on
August 12, 1937, entered into a contract with the Amalgamated.
According to its terms the Amalgamated was recognized as the sole
bargaining agent for the employees of the Company, excluding the
superintendent, the foreman, and salaried employees. That at this
time a majority of the employees within the unit described in the
contract had selected the Amalgamated to represent them for pur-
poses of collective bargaining is unquestioned. The contract thus
entered into was by its terms to remain operative until the end of
the first pay period in April 1938. In view of its imminent expira-
tion, we do not regard it as affecting our determination of the issues
in this case.
Shortly after the settlement of the strike, organization activities
by the A. F. of L. among the Company's employees were com-
menced. This apparently was the result of a request made to the
A. F. of L. by some of the Company's employees during the August
strike. In any event, by August 19, the A. F. of L.'s organization
campaign was well under way. About October 1, 1937, a representa-
tive of the A. F. of L. requested the president of the Company to
recognize the A. F. of L. for purposes of collective bargaining with
its production employees. At that time the assertion was made that
the A. F. of L. represented a majority of the employees involved.
The Company, however, refused to enter into negotiations with the
A. F. of L. because of the preexisting contract granting recognition
to the Amalgamated as the exclusive bargaining agency. On Oc-
tober 5, 1937, the A. F. of L. filed its petition requesting the investi-
gation and certification of representatives. At the hearing, the
Amalgamated attempted to introduce evidence that the impetus
behind this sudden organizational activity was provided in part by
the Company. In spite of this, however, the Amalgamated at no
time has filed any charge with the Board that the Company has
interfered with the rights guaranteed to its employees by the Act.
Counsel for the Amalgamated was carefully reminded by the Trial
Examiner that the filing of such a charge was the proper manner to
raise issues of this nature in a case like the present one. In the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 15
absence of any such charge, therefore, the Board will not in this
case consider evidence bearing upon such a collateral issue.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several. States,
and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
• Although the petition is not clear in its description of the unit
claimed to be appropriate, the A. F. of L. clarified its position at
the hearing by claiming that such unit should include all employees
of the Company, excluding supervisory and clerical employees. The
Amalgamated agreed that such a unit was proper. The Amalgamated,
however, contended that employees Reuman, Bennett, Crapsey, and
Hart performed such supervisory duties that they should be excluded
from the unit. The A. F. of L: desired inclusion of these employees.
Reuman is clearly a foreman in charge of operations on the second
floor of the Company's plant. His duties include giving orders,
checking up on the operation of the machinery, and seeing that the
workers properly carry out their duties. Whenever he detects dere-
lictions of duty by employees, he brings them to the immediate
attention of the plant superintendent. Bennett, while not a foreman,
is designated as a "lead man ." He is in charge of a group of employ-
ees, gives them orders, and instructs them in the operation of various
machines. It is also his duty to see that the men are carrying out
their tasks properly. Among other things, he reports to the plant
superintendent cases of loafing among the workers who are under his
direction. It appears that Crapsey handles all shipments by the
Company. He has an office of his own, and gives orders to four
employees under his direction. He testified at the hearing, that
although he told these four men what to do, and how to put the
orders out, he was simply repeating instructions given him by the
plant superintendent. He further stated that in case the men did not
do their work properly, he never called this to the attention of the
superintendent but took all responsibility himself. This contrasts
markedly with his statement that he had no power to recommend
hiring or discharging of employees. As to Hart, there is very little
evidence in the record which could be said to show that he was a
16 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisory employee. The evidence indicates that he is a machinist
who has a single assistant under him.
In view of all of the evidence we conclude that Reuman, Bennett, and
Crapsey perform such duties that they should be excluded from the
unit, as supervisory employees. We conclude, however, that Hart
should be included in=the unit.
We find, therefore, that all the employees of the Company excluding
supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that the said unit will insure
to the employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the
policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As noted above, no objection was raised at the hearing to the Amal-
gamated's claim that on August 12, 1937, it represented a majority of
the employees within the appropriate unit. The Amalgamated claims
that the majority of such employees still desire representation by it.
On the other hand, the A. F. of L. contends that a majority of the
employees have signed cards authorizing it to represent them. Al-
though the Trial Examiner admitted such cards only for the purpose
of identification, we have already ruled that they are admissible in evi-
dence. The Amalgamated claims, nonetheless, that a considerable
number of employees signing the cards of the A. F. of L. in fact still
desire representation by the Amalgamated. It claims further that the
Company officials have indirectly aided the A. F. of L. in its organiza-
tion activities, and thus its authorization cards do not truly --represent
the wishes of the employees.
We are of the opinion that under all the circumstances, the question
which has arisen concerning representation can best be settled by the
holding of an election by secret ballot.
There was some dispute at the hearing as to which pay roll would
be appropriate to determine eligibility to vote in case it should be-
come necessary to hold an election to determine the employees' choice
of-representatives. The A. F. of L. favored the pay roll of January
28, 1938, which was the date of the hearing. The Amalgamated,
however, argued in favor of the pay roll of August 25, 1937, which
was the pay roll immediately after its contract was negotiated with
the Company. Its argument was based on a statement that the Com-
pany had favored the A. F. of L. in the new hirings since the August
strike. The Amalgamated, however, has filed no charge in this con-
nection and there is no evidence on the point upon which the Board
properly could rely. Under all the circumstances we feel that those
eligible to vote should be the employees in the appropriate unit em-
ployed during the pay-roll period next preceding October 5, 1937,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 17
the date of the filing of the petition, exclusive of those who have
since quit or been discharged for cause.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre
sentation of employees of Sandusky Metal Products, Inc., Sandusky,
Ohio, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All of the employees of the Company, excluding supervisory
and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
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 Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended,
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized
by the Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining
with Sandusky Metal Products, Inc., Sandusky, Ohio, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15) 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 Article
III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all the em-
ployees of Sandusky Metal Products, Inc., at its plant in Sandusky,
Ohio, who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period
next preceding October 5, 193 7 , excluding supervisory and clerical
employees and those who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by American
Federation of Labor, or by Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel,
and Tin Workers of North America, *Union No. 2052, affiliated with
the Committee for Industrial Organization, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, or by neither.
[SAME TITLE]
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 13, 1938
On March 16, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
18 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the above-entitled case. The Direction of Election directed that an
election by secret ballot be conducted under the direction and super-
vision , of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland,
Ohio) among all employees of Sandusky Metal Products, Inc., San-
dusky, Ohio who appeared on the pay-roll list for the pay-roll period
next preceding October 5, 1937, excluding supervisory and clerical
employees and those who had since quit or been discharged for cause.
Pursuant to said Direction of Election, the said Regional Director
conducted an election by secret ballot on March 28, 1938. On March
29, 1938, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Sec-
tion 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1,'as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties an In-
termediate Report on the election. No objections or exceptions to
the Intermediate Report have been filed by any of the parties.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported
as follows :
Total number eligible to vote------------------------------ 33
Total number of ballots cast------------------------------- 33
Total number of votes cast in favor of American Federation
of Labor---------- --------------------------------------- 28
Total number of votes cast iii favor of Amalgamated Associ-
ation of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of North America,
Union No. 2052------------------------------------------ 5
Total number of votes in favor of neither organization ------ 0
Total number of blank ballots ----------------------------- 0
Total number of void ballots-------------------------------- 0
Total number of challenged ballots------------------------- 0
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, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections
8 and 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that American Federation of Labor has
been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of
Sandusky Metal Products, Inc., Sandusky, Ohio, excluding super-
visory and clerical employees, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining; and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, American Federation of Labor is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.