The Murray Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 1003 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE MURRAY CORPORATION' OF AMERICA ( ECORSE
PLANT) and MURRAY ECORSE SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION, (UN-
AFFILIATED)
Case No. R-4731.-Decided February 17,.1943
Jurisdiction : ordnance manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence''of question : re=
fusal to accord petitioner recognition, employees who,had been transferred
to one 'of Company's plants not involved in the present proceeding and who
were carried on the pay roll of that plant, found ineligible to,vote; employees
who had been transferred to one of Company's plants not involved in the present.
proceeding under-a loan arrangement and were still,on the pay roll of the plant
involved, -found eligible to vote; employee on whose behalf unfair labor practice
charges had been filed, permitted to vote, but his ballottiuiipounded pending
resolution of the charges ; elections necessary.
Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining :, sepdiate units comprising, respec-
tively, (1) department supervisors (2) shift supervisors (3)' section super-
visors; units confined to one of Company's plants found appropriate in ac-
cordance-with extent of employee self-organization.
Butzel, Erman, Lbng, Gust cC Bills, by Mr. Victor" W. Klein, of
Detroit, Mich:, for the Company.
Mr. Maurice Sugar,'by Mr. Ernest Goodman, of Detroit, Mich., for
the Union. ;
Mi's Melvern 'R: Krelow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended petition duly-filed by Murray Ecorse Supervisors'
Association (Unaffiliated), herein called the Union; alleging that h.
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of 'employees of The Murray Corporation of America (Ecorse Plant),
Detroit, Michigan, herein called the' Company, the National,Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing- upon due notice
before Max Rotenberg,, Trial Examiner.' Said heaing was held at
Detroit, Michigan, on January 7,1943. The Company and the Union
appeared, participated, and were afforded- full' opportunity to be
47 N. L. R. B., No. 126. • ' t' _ , .
1003
1004 DEOI1SION 'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS B-O-ARID
heard, to.examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. During the hearing the Company made
an offer of proof that the Union and its officers and members have
consulted with various representatives of United Automobile, Aircraft
& Agricultural Iiiiplement'Workersrof America (UA W-CIO), and its
Local No. 2, which is the statutory representative of the production'
employees at the Company's Ecorse and Main plants; _ and have ob-
tained advice, counsel, aid, assistance, help and guidance from them
officially and otherwise; and though there may not be any written
agreement of affiliation, in substance and effect the results are the
same. The Trial Examiner rejected the offer of proof, and,' for the
reasons indicated below, his ruling is hereby affirmed. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. r
On January 25 and 26, 1943, the Union and the Company, respec-
tively, filed briefs, which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Murray Corporation of America is a Delaware corporation,
having its main manufacturing plant and offices in Detroit, Michigan,
and Ecorse, Michigan. It is engaged at its Main plant in the produc-
tion of airplane • wings and gun turret assemblies: It is engaged at
its Ecorse plant in the manufacture and' production of frames for
military trucks and jeeps and other ordnance products. The Ecorse
plant is the only plant here involved. Approximately 61/2 percent
of the raw materials used in the fabrication of the Company's prod-
ucts at the Ecorse plant is obtained from points outside the State
of Michigan, and approximately 60 percent of the finished, products
of.the Ecorse plant is shipped to points outside the State of Michigan.
Approximately the same percentage of raw material used at its Main
plant is shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Miclii-
gan, and the percentage of finished products shipped to points outside
the State of Michigan is approximately the same. The total amount
of raw materials used at both plants and shipped to them from points
outside the State of Michigan, and shipments made to points outside
the State of Michigan by said plants exceed $55,000,000 per annum.
The Company admits that it' is- engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Murray Ecorse Supervisors' Association is an unaffiliated labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
THE MURRAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1005
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION --
On November 3,1942, -the Union requested recognition and bargain-
ing for certain supervisory employees of the Company in its Ecorse
plant. The Company refused the Union's requests.
A report prepared by the Regional Director and introduced in
evidence indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the units hereinafter found to be appropriate.',
We find that 'a, question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ' `
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The -Union petitioned for a single supervisory unit of employees
below the rank of superintendent at the Ecorse plailt -of the Company,
excluding employees of the industrial relations and-standards depart-,
meats; and, in the alternative, separate units composed of the separate
grades of supervisory employees above-described. The Company
contends (1) that supervisory employees are not employees within
the meaning of the Act; (2) that the Union is under the influence of
the UAW-CIO, and there is a likelihood of affiliation or cooperation
with the UAW-CIO, Local No. 2, which represents production em-
ployees of the Company; and (3) that the Ecorse plant is a part of the
Company's Main plant, and the unit or units, if any, should include
the employees of the categories here involved employed at the Com-
pany's Main plant.
We have determined in recent cases that supervisory employees are
equally entitled with production and maintenance employees to enjoy
the benefits conferred on employees by the Act.2. A review of -the
I The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted 64 application-authorization
cards , hearing apparently genuine signatures Of the 64 cards presented , 58, dated in
November and December 1942, bear the names of persons whose names appear on the
Company 's pay roll of November 28, 1942 . The aforesaid pay roll lists 34 section , 7 shift,
and 19 department supervisors Counsels for the Company objected to the Regional
Director ' s statement on the grounds that it is heai say evidence and has no probative
value He argued that the Company had not been afforded an opportunity to examine
the cards , or the . purported signers, to determine their authenticity . The Trial Exam-
iner overruled .the objection We have heretofore affirmed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer , and we find the Company's contention is'without merit As we have frequently
stated , the report of the, Regional Director with respect to a claim of authorization for
the purposes of representation is taken , not as proof of the precise number of employees
who desire to be represented by a 'labor organization, but rather to protect the Company
and the Board from unfounded claims by such organization and to give reasonable assur-
ance that a substantial number of employees desire to be so represented. See -fatter of
Interlake Iron Corporation and Local Union, 1657, Steel Workers Organizing Committee,
C 1 0, 38 N. L R B 139; Matter of Superior Sleep -Rite Corporation and United Office
and Professional Workers of America , Local 2i, C 10 , 39 N L R . B. 606 -
`Matter of Union Collieries Coal Comnpany;.Oakmont,"Pennsylvenia and Mine Officials'
Union of America ( Ind ), 41 N L R B 961 , 44 N L R B 165 ; Matter of Godchaux
Sugars, Inc and United Sugar Woikers, Local Industrial Union No 1186, C. 1 0, 44
N L R B 874
1006 DEICISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facts respecting the employees in the instant proceeding, as set forth
in subsequent paragraphs, indicates that no substantial difference in
factual set-up is presented by this case.'
With respect to the Company's second contention, we stated in the
Matter of Ford Motor Company 3 that "Even were it shown that the
Union is directly affiliated with, or contemplates immediate affiliation
with the UAWCIO, the Company's argument would be rejected.
The Act confers upon employees the right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing."
The employees involved herein are classified in rank as-department
supervisors, shift supervisors, and section supervisors. The depart-
ment supervisor is responsible to the general supervisor or division
superintendent, and is responsible for the operation of his department,
which includes all shifts. He has the authority to select-section super-
visors and the authority to recommend the transfer, dismissal, or
promotion of such employees and any disciplinary 'action with regard
.to them. The shift supervisor has duties and responsibilities similar
,,to those of the department supervisor with the exception that those,
.duties and responsibilities apply only to the respective shifts of the
shift supervisor. The shift supervisor is responsible to the depart=
ment supervisor. The section supervisor has similar duties and re-
sponsibilities with respect to his section and has the authority to
recommend the transfer, dismissal, or promotion of the production
employees in his section, and any disciplinary action concerning them.
He is responsible to the department supervisor on the day shift or to
the shift supervisor on the afternoon and/or night shift. These
employees do not engage in production work, and all of them engage
in supervisory duties 100 percent of the time.' We are of the opinion
that'-the various levels of supervisory employees of the Company
cannot appropriately be grouped, in a single unit. Under all the cir=
cumstances, we shall not'include' department, shift, and section super-
visors in the same unit.',
At•the time of the hearing the Company contended that it employed
only.1 shift supervisor in'the Ecorse plant. 'Prioi to the hearing, 16'
supervisory employees in the levels here involved were transferred
from the Ecorse plant to the Main 'plant. However, it is' not clear
from the record how many of these employees transferred were shift,
section, or department-supervisors. There is, therefore, a possibility
8 45 -N L. R B., No. 15.
4 Compare Matter of Boeing Aircraft Company and Association of Aircraft Supervisors,
of Seattle, Washington, 45 N L. R. B. 630; Matter of Stanley Company of America,
'et al. and United Office & Professional Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, 45 N. L. R. B. 625.
THE.MURRAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1007 `
that at the present time more than one shift supervisor may be em-
ployed in the Ecorse plant.
As we have heretofore stated, the Company contends that the Ecorse
plant is a part of the Company's Main plant, and the unit or units, if
any, should include the employees of the categories here involved em-
ployed at the Company's Main plant. We have determined in a
recent case involving the Company 5 that certain employees at the
Main and the Ecorse plants of the Company constituted a single appro-
priate unit. There, however, the labor organization involved "had
organized employees in similar classifications in both plants, but in
spite of that had requested two separate u sits. We are still of the
opinion that a two-plant unit, would not be inappropriate if organiza-
tion had been extended to both plants. It appears on the basis of the
record herein that there have been no organizational activities, and
no demands upon the Company by the Union with regard to the Main
plant. The state of the employees' self-organization, therefore, indi-
cates the present propriety of units limited to the employees at the
Ecorse plant. This determination' does not, however, preclude our
finding at another time that a two-plant unit is appropriate.
We find that the following groups of the Company's employees in
the Ecorse plant constitute units appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act,:
(1)'•All department supervisors;
(2) All shift supervisors;
(3) All section supervisors.
Our finding with respect to the unit of shift supervisors, however, is
based upon the assumption that more than one shift supervisor is now
employed in the Ecorse plant. If only one shift supervisor is eligible
to participate in the election for that group, we will not certify a
separate collective bargaining representative for him.e
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES -
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen can best. be resolved'-by elections by secret ballot among the
employees in the appropriate units who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our'Direction of
6 See Matter of The Murray Corporation of America and-International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), Amal-
gamated Looal 889, 45 N L R B 854
'Matter of Lvckenbach Steamship Companat, lno, etc and Gatemen, Watchmen and
Miscellaneous Waterfront Workers Union, Local 38-12^; International Longshoremen's
Association, 2 N. L R B 181, 199; Matter of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios and Motion
Picture Producers Ass'n et at and Screen Writers' Guild, Inc, 7 N L R B 662 and
'8 N L R. B 858, 864; Matter of Trawler Maras Stella. Inc. and American Communica-
tions Association (C I 0 ). etc, 12 N L R B 415, 426 Cf Matter of Joseph S. Finch
& Co, Inc. and United Distillery Workers Union, Local No 3, 10 N L R. B. 896. -
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Elections, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
A problem arises, however, as to, the eligibility of the employees
transferred from the Ecorse plant to the Main plant. As stated in
Section IV, above, 16 supervisory employees in the levels here involved
were transferred from the Ecorse plant to the Main plant. Four of
the employees requested transfer, and these employees are now on the
permanent pay roll of the Main plant. Fife employees, who are work-
ing in the purchasing department in the Main plant, were transferred
on a loan arrangement. They are still carried'on the pay roll of the
Ecorse plant. Of the 5, Walter McNally, shift supervisor at the Ecorse
plant, was transferred to the Main plant as a'follow-up mail., The
Union has filed with the Board charges of unfair labor practices alleg-
iaig that McNally's transfer was discriminatory.? The remaining `7
are on the pay roll of the Main plant due to, an increase in airplane
production in that plant. With respect to the eligibility of the '4 em-
ployees who requested transfer and are on the pay roll of the Main
plant, and the 7 who have been transferred and are also on the pay roll
of the Maii plant as a result of an increase in production at that
plant, we are of the opinion that they should not be entitled to vote.
We find that the, 5 employees who were transferred on a loan arrange-
ment and are still on the pay roll of the Ecorse plant, are entitled to
vote. - With regard to McNally, we shall, in accordance with our usual
practice in this respect, permit this employee to vote; however, his
ballot shall be impounded and we shall defer passing upon its validity,
if it becomes necessary to do so, until the unfair labor practice charges
have been resolved. Our decision permitting this person to vote is not
to be interpreted as passing upon the legality or illegality of'his
transfer.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS,
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 representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Murray Corpora-
tion, Detroit, Michigan, at its Ecorse plant, elections by, secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this
7 The charges , docketed as Case No. VII-C-1107 , were filed on December 10, 1942, and
alleged violation of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) The Union has waived the right to object
to any election ordered herein on the basis of the aforesaid , charges.
THE MURRAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1009
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject,
to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, and the find-
ings set forth in Section V, above, among the employees in the units
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 or temporarily laid off, and in-
cluding 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 Murray, Ecorse Supervisors' Association
(Unaffiliated), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Mn. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reasons previously stated,8 I would not find that the super-
visors here involved constitute appropriate units.
I
N See dissenting opinions in Matter of Union Collieries Coal Company, Oakmont, Pennsyl-
vania and Mine Ofcials' Union of Amei ica (Ind ), 41 N L R B 961, 970; and Matter of
Godchaux Sugars, Inc, and United Sugar Worker s, Local Industrial Union No. 1186, C I 0 ;
44 N L R B. 874, 880
11
513024-43-vol. 47-64