J. I. Case Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 692 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of J . I. CASE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION7
-UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO)
Case No. 10-CA-058.-Decided December 16, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a charge filed on March 10, 1949, by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the Union, the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General
Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, issued a com-
plaint dated May 23, 1949, against J. I. Case Company, herein called
the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint, the charges, and notice of hearing were duly
served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges
in substance that on or about March 7 and 8, 1949, and at all times
thereafter the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appro-
priate unit, although the Union had been certified by the Board as
the representative of the employees in such unit. On or about June 6,
1949, the Respondent filed an answer, alleging that the certification of
the Union in this case was invalid. The Respondent also filed a brief
contending that the complaint should be dismissed for various reasons,
which are discussed in detail below. I
Thereafter, desiring to avoid the need for a hearing, all the parties
entered into a stipulation, which set forth an agreed statement of
facts. The stipulation provides (1) that the parties have waived
their right to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and before the Board
or a member thereof, to the preparation and filing of an Intermediate
87 NLRB No. 99.
692
J. I. CASE COMPANY 693
Report and Recommended Order, and to the making and issuance by
the Board of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; (2)
that the parties reserve their right to file briefs and argue orally
before the Board; (3) that the Board, without further notice to the
parties, may issue a Decision and Order based upon the stipulation and
the record described in the stipulation; and (4) that the charge, com-
plaint, notice of hearing, order 'indefinitely postponing hearing, the
Respondent's answer, the stipulation, certain exhibits attached to the
stipulation, and the entire record 1 in the earlier representation pro-
ceeding, noted above, shall constitute the entire record in this case
and may be filed with the Board in Washington, D. C. The stipula-
tion has been accepted and made a part of the record herein, and, in
accordance with Section 203.51 of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, the proceeding is hereby transferred to, and
continued before, the Board.
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation and the entire record
in the case, the Board 2 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
J. I. Case Company, a Wisconsin corporation, operates a plant at
Anniston, Alabama, where it manufactures, sells, and distributes
power-drawn tillage implements. During the year ending May 1,
1949, the Respondent purchased for its Anniston plant raw materials
valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 75 percent of which
was shipped from points outside Alabama. During the same
period the Respondent manufactured at its Anniston plant fin-
-ished products, consisting principally of power-drawn tillage imple-
ments, valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 75 percent of
which was sold and shipped to customers outside the. State of
Alabama.
The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
'The parties stipulated in this connection that the following portions of the record in
the representation case be incorporated in the record in this case : the official report of pro-
ceedings, the exhibits received by the hearing officer , the Respondent ' s Motion for Dis-
closure of Matters of Record, its Supplement to Motion to Dismiss , its brief filed on or
about July 23, 1948 , the Board ' s Order Denying Motion of December 16, 1948 , the Board's
Decision and Direction of Elections , and the Board ' s Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representatives.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray].
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
A. The appropriate unit and the Union's majority representation
herein
. On February 2, 1948, the Union filed a petition seeking certification
as the representative of the Respondent's employees at its Anniston
plant. Within the next few days petitions were filed by three other
unions, . each seeking to represent a portion.of the plant-wide unit
proposed by the Union. A consolidated hearing was held upon these
petitions, and on November 9, 1948, the Board issued a Decision and
Direction of Elections,3 in which it directed separate self -determina-
tion, or "Globe," elections in four voting groups. In the election for
each group the Board placed on the ballot the Union, and the other
labor organization seeking to represent such group as a separate unit.
As a result of these elections and a subsequent run-off election, the
Board 4 certified the Union for one of the four voting groups, in a
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.'
. In its brief filed with the Board in the present case, the Respondent
attacks the validity of the Board's certifications First, the Respond-
8 80 NLRB 217.
4 Member Murdock dissented.
s The group for which the Union was certified , hereinafter called Group 3, consisting
of foundry workers, had been sought as a separate ' unit by International Molders and
Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL, hereinafter called the Molders. The
election in another of the four voting groups was won by the International Association
of Machinists . In the remaining two groups , the majority voted for no union. 81 NLRB
969.
In addition to the contentions hereinafter discussed ,.the Respondent renewed several
Procedural objections which had been considered and rejected by the Board in our original
Decision and Direction of Elections herein. These include :
(1) The contention that the Board had no authority to certify the Union because
its petition did not allege , and the record of the hearing does not show, that the Re-
spondent had declined to recognize the Union as the representative of its employees..
This contention was rejected in the earlier proceeding herein on the authority of
Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29 . This ruling is re-affirmed on the same
ground. Moreover , the election in Group 3 was not based on the Union 's petition
:alone , but also on the petition of the Molders , which sought to represent Group 3
as a separate unit. Accordingly , even if the Union's petition were defective for the
reasons alleged , the election could still have been validly predicated on the Molders'
,petition , the Union being treated as merely an intervenor in the proceeding on the
.Molders ' petition.
(2) The contention that the Board had no, authority to conduct the election and
certify the Union because the record of the hearing in the representation case did
-not show that the Union (or any other participating labor organization) had been
designated as bargaining representative by a substantial number of the Respondent's
,employees . In re -affirming our rejection of this contention , we rely on the following
J. I. CASE COMPANY 695
ent contends that the certification of the Union for the employees in
Group 3 is void because issued in violation of Section 9 (b).
Section 9 (b) provides that, in deciding the appropriate unit, the
Board shall act "to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercis-
ing the rights guaranteed by" the Act. The Respondent urges that
one of these rights is the right to refrain from collective bargaining;
that our prior action in directing a Globe election for Group 3 reflected
a finding that employee preference in regard to bargaining or refrain
ing from bargaining in it Group 3 unit would be the controlling factor
in the final determination of the appropriateness of such a unit; that
the vote against the Molders and for the Union in Group 3 unequivo-
cally indicated that the employees did not wish to bargain in such a
unit; that when the Board, in disregard of this choice, found a Group
3 unit to be appropriate, it violated its duty under Section 9 (b)• to
assure to employees the fullest freedom in the exercise of their right to
refrain from collective bargaining.
We are unable to agree with the Respondent's assumption, stated
above, that the vote in Group 3 for the Union and against the Molders,
reasonably construed, constitutes an expression of a desire to refrain
altogether from bargaining in a Group 3 unit. In our original Decisiona
and Direction of Elections, we found that certain groups of the Re-
spondent's employees, including Group 3, might, if the employees in
each such group so desired, constitute a separate bargaining unit.
Accordingly, pursuant to our practice in such cases, we postponed a
final unit determination pending the outcome of separate elections
among the employees in such groups, placing on the ballot in each
such election (1) the labor organization which had petitioned for the
right to represent the particular group as a separate unit (in the case
of Group 3, the Molders) and (2) the Union, which had asked for a
plant-wide unit. In so doing, we stated : "If in these elections a
majority of the employees in any of the voting groups votes for the
Petitioner seeking to represent such group, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate bargaining
unit."
cases, in addition to those cited in our Decision and Direction of Elections : 0. D.
Jennings