Briggs Indiana Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 920 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of BRIGGS INDIANA CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION , UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA; UAW-CIO, LOCAL 211
Case No. R-5.268.-Decided May 19, 1943
Beaumont, Smith & Harris, by Mr. Percy J. Donovan, of Detroit,
Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Joseph V. Gavin, of Evansville, Ind., for Local 211.
Miss Melrvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board. .
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft, Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-
'CIO, Local 211, herein called, Local 211,1 alleging, that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Briggs Indiana Corporation, Evansville; Indiana, herein
called the Company, the National. Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Eugene M. Purver,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Evansville, Indiana, on
April 29,4943. The Company and Local 211 appeared, participated,
and were-afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and. cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed. On May 4, 1943, the Company
filed a brief which the Board has considered.
1 At the hearing Local 211 moved to amend its petition to reflect more accurately the
question concerning representation. The Trial Examiner granted the motion over the
Company's objection The petition on its face appears to have been executed on April 5,
1943, and bears a notation that it was filed on April 6, 1943 At the hearing representa-
tive for Local 211 testified that he filed the petition on April 5, 1943. Section 11 of the
petition states that "on March 31, 1943, the UAW-CIO wrote the Company claiming to
represent a majority and-asked for recognition To date no reply has been received." The
record indicates that the letter written by Local 211 to the Company was dated April 1,
1943, and a reply by the Company dated April 5, 1943, was received by Local 211 on April
6, 1943. The Trial Examiner's ruling is hereby affirmed.
49 N. L. It. B., No. 130. '
920
BRIGGS INDIANA CORPORATION 921
Subsequent. to the hearing •a stipulation to correct the transcript of
record was entered into between the parties and filed with the Board.
The stipulation is hereby made a part of the record.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Briggs Indiana Corporation, an Indiana corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Briggs Manufacturing Company, Detroit, Mich-
igan, is engaged at Evansville, Indiana, in the manufacture of air-
plane parts and other war materials.. During 1942, the Company
used raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than
75 percent was shipped to it from points outside the State of Indiana.
During the same period, the Company produced finished products
valued in excess of $1,000,000, all of which were shipped to points
outside the State of Indiana.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 211, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees-of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
By letter dated April 1, 1943, Local 211 advised the Company that
it represented a majority "of the Company's plant-protection employ-
ees and requested negotiations for a contract for said employees. On
April 5, 1943, the Company replied that it must deny the above request
because of the provision in its current contracts with the International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, herein called the International, and its Locals Nos.
212, 265,, 742, and 948, covering the production and maintenance em-.
ployees of the Briggs Manufacturing Company at its seven Detroit
plants and at its Cleveland, Ohio, plant and at the Company's plant
in Evansville, Indiana, which precluded the contracting unions from
accepting for membership certain enumerated classes of employees,
including plant-protection employees. The Company contends that
the contractual provision is a bar to this,proceeding.
The Company is currently operating under a collective bargaining
contract with the International and its Local No. 265 covering its pro-
duction and maintenance employees. The Company's parent organi-
zation is also currently operating under similar collective bargaining
922 DECISQONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contracts with the International andr its Locals 2f2, 742, and- 948. All
of these agreements, were executed' in November 1942, and by their
terms are to remain ini effect- until November 1943. Each of these
contracts contains a' provision stating that "the Union agrees that. it
will not accept for membership direct representatives of the manage-
ment, such as. . . plant-p'rotecfion employees . . ." The Company
contends that the petitioning Union, Local 211, being an affiliate of the
International, is bound by this' provision and- is therefore estopped
from seeking to represent the plant-protection employees.
We have recently had occasion to consider a similar contractual pro-
vision between the Company's parent organization and the Interna-
tional and certain of its locals. We there held that it was not W 'bar
to a determination of representatives.2 For reasons there stated we
find that the foregoiib provision contained in the contract between
the Company and the Iiifernational` and its Local No. 265 is not a. bar
A statement of-the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at the
hearing, indicates that Local 211 represents a substantial number of'
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation' of employees of the' ComISany, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and, (7) 'of the National Labor
Relation's Act.
to these proceedings.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
. /
Local 211 contends that the Company's plant-protection employees,
excluding supervisory employees, comprise an appropriate unit: The
Workers of America ('UAW-CIO), Local No 114. 47 N L R. B 032
2Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Plant Protection Local
Union' No. 114, UAW-CIO, 49 N.' L. R B , N6 10; See also Matter of Packard Motor Car
Company and International Union', United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
, The Regiohal Director reported that Local 211 submitted 52 designations for member=
ship' in the International Of the 52 designations submitted 50 dated in March 1943 bear
apparently genuine signatures of persons whose names appear on the Company's pay roll-
of April' 13, 1943, which contains the naines of 57 persons in the appropriate unit.
Counsel for the Company,' in objecting to the introduction in evidence of the Regional'
Director's statement, argued that the statement has no probative value since the Regional
Director was nct present at the hearing as a v'itness and could'not be`cross-examined, and
becauso no actual check was' made' to' ascertain that the signatures df the persons signing
the designations were in fact signatures of the emplo} ees in the Company's plant-protec-
tion department. The Time Examiner overruled the objection we have heretofore
affirmed the rulings of the' Trial Examiner and we find that the Company's contentions
are without merit. As we have frequently stated, the report of a Board agent with respect
to A claim of autlioiizatioii for the puiposes'of representation is'taken, not as proof of the
precise number of employees ,oho desire to be represented by a labor organization, but
rather to protect the Company and the Board from unfounded claims by such organiza-
tions and to give reasonable assurance that a substantial number of employees desire to
be so' represented. See Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation and Local Union 1657, Steel
Was kers Organizing Commiittee, 0. 1. 0., 38 N. L. R. B. 139.
BRIGGS INDIANA CORPORATION , 923
Company contends that plant-protection employees are not employees
within the meaning of the-Act and further, that collective bargaining
is inconsistent with their status as civilian auxiliaries of the military
police.
The, Company's plant-protection force consists of approximately 57
employees, all of whom have recently been made civilian auxiliaries of
the military police. The army has formulated certain employment
standards applicable to the plant-protection employees. Nevertheless,
these, employees are-hired and paid by the Company and in all essential
respects the customary employer-employee relationship is: preserved.
In view of these facts and for reasons we have stated in similar cases,
we find no merit in either of the Company's contentions.' -
We find that the Company's plant-protection employees, excluding
supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elec-
tion, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
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 Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Briggs Indiana
Corporation, Evansville, Indiana, 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 of Election, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub-
ject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among all
employees of the Company in the unit found appropriate 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
9 See Matter of Curtiss-Wrtight Corp. and International Association of Machinists, Das-
te ict 76, A F L, 45 N. L R B 1268, and cases cited theiein
924 DEOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 any who have since quit or been discharged for cause
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, Local 211, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
i
i