The Hettrick Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 722 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE HETTRICK MANUFACTURING COMPANY and 'FERTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
Case No. B-1872.-Decided July 19, 1940
Jurisdiction : metal furniture manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives:
Where only oral claim made prior to new contract and no showing of
representation creating a substantial doubt concerning the contracting union's
majority, the Board will not make a new-determination of representatives.
Practice and Procedure : petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives dismissed in absence of question concerning representation.
Mr. Lester Asher, for the Board.
Mr. I. P. Smith, of Toledo, Ohio, and Mr. W. 1. Smith, of Goshen,
Ind., for the Company.
Mr. Leon M. Despres, of Chicago, Ill., Mr. Wm. J. Tullar, of Toledo,
Ohio, and Mr. David Jaffe, of New York City, for the T. W. U. A.
Mr. Stanton A. Sweeney and Mr. Hugh A. Gormley, of Indianapolis,
Ind., and Mr. Frank S. Pryor, of Frankfort, Ind., for the Federal.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 24, 1940, Textile Workers Union of America, herein
called the T. W. U. A., filed with the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), a petition alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of The Hettrick Manufacturing Company, Goshen, Indiana,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives pursuant to. Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On May 10,
1940, 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 2,
as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
25 N. L. R. B., N. 79.
722
THE HETTRICK MANUFACTURING COMPANY 723
On May 14, 1940 , the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company , the T . W. U. A.,
=,and ,upon,Federal Labor Union No. 21889, herein called the Federal, a
labor organization claiming to represent employees directly affected
by the investigation . On May 17, 1940; the Regional Director issued
a notice of continuance of hearing . Pursuant to the notice of continu-
ance, a hearing was held on June 3, 1940, at Goshen , Indiana, before
Mortimer Riemer, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board , the T . W._ U. A., and the Federal were represented by
counsel , the Company by its representatives, and all participated in
the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing the Federal filed a
motion ' to, intervene in the -proceedings. The motion was granted.
Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all the
parties. At the close of the hearing, the Federal filed a motion to
dismiss the petition . The Trial Examiner reserved ruling thereon.
The motion is hereby granted for the reasons stated in Section III,
below. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence . The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Ex=
aminer and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. -
On June 12, 1940, the Federal requested oral argument before the
Board. On June 21, 1940, the T. W. U. A. filed a brief which the
Board, has considered.
Pursuant` to notice-duly served upon the parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on June 25, 1940,
at Washington, D. C. The T. W. U. A. and the Federal were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the argument.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Hettrick Manufacturing Company is an Ohio corporation oper-
ating plants at Toledo, Ohio, and Goshen, Indiana. This proceeding
is concerned solely with the employees of the Goshen plant: The Com-
pany is engaged in the manufacture of metal furniture at its Goshen
plant where it normally employs approximately 150 workers. During
its fiscal year ending October 31, 1939,'the Goshen plant expended
approximately $296,000 for raw materials, 95 per cent of which were
shipped to it from points outside the. State of .Indiana. During the
same period," it manufactured products valued at approximately
$450,000, 95 per cent of which were shipped by it to points outside the
State of Indiana.
'724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II: THE ` ORGANIZATIONS -INVOLVED -
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to mem-
bership all production, maintenance, shipping, and warehouse em-
ployees at the Goshen plant of the Company, excluding supervisory and
clerical employees.
Federal Labor Union No. 21889 is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor,-admitting to membership thejsame
-classes of employees of the Company as the T. W. U. A.
HI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since 1936 the-T. W. U. A. had annual exclusive bargaining contracts
with the -Company covering The employees. in the- Toledo^'plant. ;In-
1938 the Company started production in the Goshen plant. In the
latter part of 1938 and the early part of 1939, the • T. W. U.- A.-
-requested the Company to recognize it as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the Goshen and . Toledo plants. The Company_
refused to treat both plants as a single ' bargaining unit and, the-
T. W. U. A. called a strike at the Toledo and Goshen plants in March
1939. This strike was settled by agreement of the T. W..U. A. and
the Company in April 1939. . - ,
In February 1939, the Federal, claiming to represent. a majority of
the employees in the Goshen plant, requested the Company to recognize
it as the exclusive representative of the employees in that plant. Upon
the presentation by the Federal of membership cards bearing-the sig-
natures of a majority of the Goshen employees, the ,Company and the
-Federal entered into a collective agreement. By. its terms, the Com-
pany agreed to recognize the Federal as exclusive representative of the
;Goshen plant. employees and to discipline members, of the Federal if
-they disavowed their affiliation. The contract was to remain in effect
until February 25, 1940, and thereafter from year to year unless either
-party thereto by 60 days' notice, prior to the expiration of any year
period advised the other of a desire to change or terminate it.
An official of the T. W. U. A. testified that on February 8,.1940, he
"recommended" to the Company xthat "before any further action was
taken by the Company with regard to signing an agreement with a
labor union' that we attempt in some way to determine more clearly
who the bargaining agency was." The Company denied receiving any
communication from the T. W. U. A. until May 1940.
The Federal served the Company with 'the.required .notice of, a
desire to modify the February 25, 1939, contract within the prescribed
time and the parties immediately started negotiations for a new con-
tract. After satisfying itself by checking membership cards submitted
THE HETTRTCK MANUFACTURING COMPANY 725
by the Federal that the Federal represented a majority of the Goshen
employees, the Company entered into a 1-year exclusive bargaining
contract with it on February 13, 1940.
On February 24, 1940, the T. W. U. A. filed its petition herein.
A check of the Federal's membership cards by the Trial Examiner
during the hearing revealed that the Federal represented 101 em-
ployees of the 154 employees on the pay roll of the Company at the
time of the consummation of the 1940 contract and that the T. W. U. A.
represented 33 employees at that time.
The Federal takes the view that there can be no question concerning
representation during the life of the February 13, 1940, contract. The
T. W. U. A. insists that the contract is no bar to a present determina-
tion of representatives.
Assuming that the T. W. U. A. did make an oral claim on February
8, 1940, to represent a majority of the employees, it was not until after
the new contract had been made that the T. W. U. A. filed the petition
herein. In view of the fact that prior to the execution of the 1940
contract only an oral claim of majority, at best, had been presented
to the Company by the T. W. U. A., that it was not until after the 1940
contract had been consummated that a petition was filed by the
T. W. U. A., and that the-showing of representation made by the
T. W. U. A. does not create a substantial doubt concerning the Federal's
majority at the time the contract was renewed or at the time of the
filing of the petition, we are of the opinion that as a matter of policy
under the Act and in the interest of the stability of collective bar-
gaining agreements the Board should not, in the circumstances here
presented, make a new determination of representatives at this time.'
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of The
Hettrick Manufacturing Company, Goshen, Indiana, now exists, with-
in the-meaning'of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of
law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the petition
'See Matter of Bon Ton Curtain Company and American Federation of Labor, Federal
Union, 20 N L R R 462. Matter of Ainei eon Hair