The Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In `the Matter of THE TOLEDO STAMPING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AG-
RICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #12 (CIO)
Case No . 8-R-1334.-Decided March 30, 1944
Mr. Alan B. Loop, Toledo, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Edward Lamb, by Mr. David A. Guberman , of Toledo , Ohio,,
for the CIO.
Mr. Earl S. Streeter, of Toledo, Ohio, for the MESA.
Mr. Irving Rogosin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Union, United Auto
mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,.
Local #12 (CIO), affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations , herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
The Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Company, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice before Arthur Stark, Trial Exam-
iner: Said hearing was held at Toledo, Ohio, on December 21, 1943.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted
motions of the Mechanics Educational Society of America, Locals
No. 3 and 4 (CUA), herein called the MESA, to intervene. The
Company, the CIO and the MESA 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. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed . A motion by the
MESA to dismiss the petition on several grounds was referred by
the Trial Examiner to the Board- for appropriate ruling . For rea-
1 The name of the Company , as well as that of the petitioning union, is here stated as
corrected in the record.
55 N. L . K. B., No. 152.
578129-44-vol. 55-56 865
866 DECISIONS O' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sons hereinafter indicated we deem it unnecessary to rule on this
motion. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with
the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Company is an, Ohio; Cor-
poration, having its only plant and office at Toledo, Ohio, where it
is engaged in the manufacturing of metal stampings. The principal
raw material used is steel. During the fiscal year ending June 30,
1943, the value of the principal raw material used was $378,690, of
which approximately 95 percent was purchased outside the State of
Ohio. The value of the Company's • finished products for the same
period was $927,084, approximately 95 percent.of which was shipped
to points outside the State of Ohio. The Company employs approxi-
mately 175 persons exclusive of its officers.
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 & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local #12 (CIO), affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Mechanics Educational
Society of America, Locals No. 3 and 4 (CUA), affiliated with the
Confederated Unions of America, are labor organizations admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
It was stipulated by the parties that on or about November 8, 1943,
the CIO requested the Company to grant it recognition as the ex-
clusive collective bargaining representative of its employees, and that
the Company thereafter refused to grant such recognition until the
CIO has been certified by the Board.
On April 22, 1941, the Company and the MESA entered into a
contract for a term of 1 year with a provision for an extension for
an additional period of 1 year unless written notice of termination
was given by either party within 30 days of the original expiration
date. No such notice was given and the contract was automatically
extended for a period of 1 year. On July 21, 1941, an addendum to
the contract was executed by the parties, granting an increase in hourly
rates. A subsequent memorandum, executed by the parties on March
THE TOLEDO STAMPING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 867
3, 1942, further increased the hourly rate of employees covered by
the contract. The original contract expired in accordance with its
terms on April 22, 1943. Although the contract made no provision
for further renewal beyond that date, and there is nothing in the
record to indicate that the parties had expressly agreed orally to
extend the terms of the contract, the Company and the MESA main-
tain that they have continued to operate thereunder since the ex-
piration date.2
On October 15, 1943, the MESA, through its secretary, in a letter
addressed to the Company, requested that the agreement of April
22, 1941, be rewritten, and submitted certain provisions which it
desired to have incorporated into the new contract. Thereafter, on
November 8, 1943, and before a new contract had been negotiated,
the petitioner notified the Company by letter that it claimed to
represent a majority of its employees, requested exclusive recognition
as collective bargaining agent, cautioned the Company against enter-
ing into a new contract with any other organization, and advised of
the filing of the petition in this proceeding.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the contract is no bar to this
proceeding.
We are, however, constrained to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the petitioner's prima facie showing of membership among the
Company's employees in the special circumstances here presented, af-
fords no proper basis upon which this Board would be warranted in
directing an election.
At the hearing it developed that there was a dispute between the
parties as to the propriety of including within the bargaining unit one
Dean, the Company's chief inspector who, the MESA contended, is a
supervisory employee. The record clearly establishes that Dean is a
supervisory employee having authority to recommend hiring, as well
as to recommend transfers, promotions, or demotions of employees.
Dean was called as a witness by the CIO to testify with respect to mat-
ters bearing on the issue of his supervisory status. In the course of
his cross-examination he admitted, in effect, that he had sponsored the
CIO's membership drive and that his name appeared upon "a majority"
of the cards submitted by the CIO to the Board's agent in support of its
petition.3
2 Even assuming, as the MESA contends, and contrary to our findug, that the contract
continued in full force and effect by reason of the fact that no notice of termination had
been given by either party, it «ould have continued to operate for a period of indefinite
duration, and would, hence, be no bar to this proceeding, in the face of petitioner's notice
to the Company
3In addition to testifying that he was a member of the CIO, Dean stated that applica-
tions "were handed out, signed and turned in" ; that he was "more or less" actiN e in the
organization of the CIO at the plant ; and that his "signature" was "on a majority" of the
applications, but that his name had been signed to them by "so many of those that signed
IIp n
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although this evidence was adduced notwithstanding the Trial
Examiner's proper ruling 4 that no inquiry would be permitted with
respect to the authenticity of the CIO's application cards as reported
on by the Board's Field Examiner," or with respect to any alleged un-
fair labor practice of the Company, we will not disregard the plain
purport of Dean's admissions. The Board will not knowingly accord
a place on the ballot in an election to an organization which is incapa-
ble of serving as the bona fide bargaining representative of employees.(,
For similar reasons, we must decline here to direct an election upon
the petition of a labor organization whose claim to represent the em-
ployees affected by the petition is evidenced by application or designa-
tion cards secured with the assistance of a supervisory employee of the
Company.
We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition, without prejudice to the
CIO's right to seek an investigation and determination of representa-
tives when it can produce satisfactory prima facie evidence of its desig-
nation as collective bargaining representative of the employees of the
Company, secured without the assistance of any supervisory employees.°
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives of em-
ployees of The Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Company, Toledo,
Ohio, filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local #12 (CIO), af-
fil iated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
4 See Matter of Amos-Thompson Corporation, 49 N L R B 423, Matter of Atlas Pow-
der Comipany, Zapon Division, 43 N L R. B 557, and cases therein cited.
The Field Examiner repotted that the CIO submitted 216 authorization cards, of which
103 contained punted signatures, and 88 born apparently genuine original signatures The
names of these 88 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Conpan3's pay roll of
December 1, 1943, which contained the navies of 239 employees in the appropriate umt ;
2 of the cards were dated October 1043, and 86 were undated
6 Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc, 53 N L R B 486; Matter of Phelps Dodge
Ce, poi atom United Ve) dej Ri each, 6 N. L. R B 624.
7 Subsequent to the hearing, the MESA filed charges %zitli the Regional Office alleging in
substance that the Company, through its chief inspector, Dean, had illegally assisted the
CIO in its membership campaign. After iniestigation of these charges, the Regional Dnec-
tor refused to issue a complaint, inasmuch as the Company had entered into a settlement
agreement by the tennis of which it agreed to post a notice repudiating any statement made
by Dean in support of or opposition to any union.