The Murray Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 925 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE MURRAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA and AMALGAM-
ATED PLANT PROTECTION LOCAL #114, UAW-CIO
Case No. RD970.Decided May 19, 1943
Mr. Frank H. Bowen, for the Board.
Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Bills, of Detroit, Mich., for the Com-
pany.
Mr. Irving E. Griffeth, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended-petition dulyfiled by Amalgamated-Plant Protection
Local #114, UAW-CIO, herein called,the Union, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of The Murray Corporation of America, Detroit, Michigan,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board, the
Company, and the Union, on April 24, 1943, entered into a stipulation
containing an agreed statement of facts and expressly waiving the
holding of a hearing by the Board and notice thereof. The Board
hereby approves the stipulation.
Upon the entire record in the case, the-Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Murray Corporation of America, a Delaware corporation, is
engaged,in,the:manufacture of aircraft•and,auto,truck parts,and'metal'
.stampings. It owns and operates plants located at Detroit and Ecorse,
Michigan, which are the plants involved in this proceeding. The total
amount of raw materials shipped to both plants from points outside
the State of Michigan and the total amount of finished products
.shipped from both plants to points outside the State of Michigan
49 N. L. R. B., No. 131.
925
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
substantially exceed $55,000,000 annually. The Company admits, for
the purpose of this proceeding, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Plant Protection Local- #114, UAW-CIO is a labor
organization affiliated with the.Longress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 23, 1942, the Union notified the Company of its major-
ity status and requested exclusive recognition as bargaining repre-
sentative for plant -protection employeess of the' Company 's Ecorse
plant. The Company , on or,about 'February 10, 1943, replied that it
could not recognize the Union because of a provision in each of its
contracts since 1937 with the Iliteinational Union, United Automobile
-Workers of America,' affiliated with '' tlie'C.• 'I: O'., herein called the
International , and Local #2 thereof , covering its production and
maintenance employees ; which 'pi ecluded'the contracting union from
accepting - for membership certain enumerated classes . of employees,
including plant-protection , employees ; and that in , any , event; the
plant-protection employees at both its Detroit and Ecorse plants con-
stituted ,a more appropriate unit. Thereafter the Union filed ' a, petit
tion, which was amended on April 10,•1943, to include'plant -protection
employees of both the Detroit and Ecorse plants.
Since 1937 the Company lias•o'perated under collective bargaining
contracts with the International and Local covering its production
and maintenance employees. Each of these contracts contains a pro-
,,ision stating, that "It is mutually agreed that for the purposes of -this
agreement the term `employees ' shall not include , and that the Union
will not accept for membership ;.,,plant protection employees . ' .."
The Company contends that ,the Union , being an affiliate of the Inter-
national, is bound -by - this provision • and,,therefore is estopped from
seeking to represent the plant-protection employees. -
We- have ' recently had occasion to consid 'er' a' similar contractual
'provision between'the Briggs Manufacturing , Company and , the same
union -here involved . , We, there held that it'was not a bar to a deter-
mi'n'ation of,representati vesa ' ^ For 'reasons there stated we,,*find that
-the, -foregoing provision ,'contain'ed in the ' contract between the, Com-
1Matter , of Briggs , ManufacturingCompant and, Amalgamated Plant Protection, Local
Z7itioit l No % 1L'i, iUATV-CIO, 49 N ' L `'It' B ''57 ;'see also ' Matter ' o f Packard Motor Car
Oommpaoty and International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft, tf Agricultural Implement
lvoikers of America ( UAW-CIO), Local No. 1-4, 47 N. L. R B 932.
THE MUR^RAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA 927
pany and the International and its Local #2 is not a bar to these
proceedings. . i
A statement of the Regional Director, appended to the stipulation,
indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees.
in the unit 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 UNIT
The parties stipulated that if a unit of plant-production employees
is found appropriate, the unit shall comprise all plant-protection em-
ployees of the Company at its Detroit and Ecorse, Michigan, plants
excluding investigators, supervisory -(among others, and not by way
of limitation, such as the superintendent, chief investigator, chief fire
marshal, coordinator of civilian defense, patrol force training staff
lieutenant, captains, lieutenants, and sergeants) and clerical employees.
The company, however, contends that plant-protection' employees are
to such a degree representatives of management that they should be
excluded from any bargaining unit, and further, that collective bar-
gaining is inconsistent with their status as civilian auxiliaries of the
military police.
All plant-protection employees of the Company have recently been
made civilian auxiliaries of the military police. However, these em-
ployees 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 the reasons we have stated in similar cases, we _
find no merit in either of the Company's contentions.3 The Board
has frequently found that; plant-protection employees whose duties are
in all material respects similar to those of the employees here involved
may-constitute an.appropriate bargaining unit.4
We find that all plant-protection employees of the Company at its
Detroit and Ecorse, Michigan, plants excluding supervisory, ( among
2 The Regional Director reported that the Union presented 105 authorization cards Of
the 105 submitted , 89 dated in November and December 1942, and in January , February,
Match, and April 1943 , and 3 undated , bore apparently genuine signatures of persons
whose names appeared on a list submitted by the Company on April 10, 1943. The list
contained the names of 189 employees in the unit
3 See Matter of Curtiss - Wright Cop and International Association of Machinists, Des-
tract 76, A F L, 45 N. L R B 1268, and cases cited therein.
4 See Matter of TT' Sherman Bu, its , Raymond J Burns, etc and International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft cC Agiicultutal Implement Workers of America , CIO, Local
258, 49 N L R B 385 ; Matter of Jones C Laughlin Steel Corporation, -Otis Works and
United Steelworkers of America (CIO), 49 N L R B 410
The considerations which impelled a majority of the Boaid recently to find that super-
visory employees could not constitute appropriate units are not applicable here See,T,he
Maryland Dry Dock Company and Local -No. 31 of The Iudustrral Union-of -Marine iG'Ship-
building Workers of America, 49 N. L . It. B. 733.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
others, and not by way of limitation , such as the superintendent, chief
investigator , chief fire marshal , coordinator of civilian defense, patrol
force training staff lieutenant , captains , lieutenants , and sergeants)
and clerical 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
Election, 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 of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Re-
lations 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 the Murray Cor-
poration of America , Detroit, Michigan , 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 supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, act-
, ng in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject 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 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
Amalgamated ` Plant ' Protection Local #114, UAW-CIO, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERALD D. REILLY took no part in the consid 'eratioii of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
i