Federal Screw Works And Local 174, United Automobile Workers Of America, 100 (1940)

In the Matter of FEDERAL SCREW WORKS and LOCAL 174, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA Cases Nos. C-1148 and R-1150.-Decided March 4, 1940 Nuts, Bolts, and Screw Manufacturing Industry-Company-Dominated Union:

charges of, not sustained-Complaint: dismissed-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representation of employees: rival unions; company refuses to recognize either as exclusive representative pending certification by Board-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production and maintenance employees including inspectors but excluding supervisory, clerical workers, timekeepers and plant protection men-Representatives: eligibility to participate in choice: employees who worked for 60 days in preceding year and who were not discharged for cause in view of seniority and rehiring agreements-Election Ordered eligibility date: pay roll preceding date of Direction of Election; apparent agreement among parties to use date preceding hearing disregarded.

Mr. George J. Bott, for the Board.

Freud, Markus & Stutz, of Detroit, Mich., by Mr. O. A. Markus and Mr. L. Weiner, for the respondent.

Mr. Stanley Nowak, of Detroit, Mich., for the U. A. W. A.

Mr. P. J. M. Halley, of Detroit, Mich., for the League.

Mr. Edward Scheunemann, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION ORDER AND..

DIRECTION O.FELEETI‹._:V *.';ýATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 18, 19'8; Locoak: 14,-. ritited Auoromibile Workers of America, herein called the Ui: A.. W. -A., fi:ed - ith the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), charges alleging that Federal Screw Works, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.

On June 18, 1938, the U. A. W. A. filed with the Regional Director a petition alleging that a question had arisen concerning the rep 100 resentation of employees of the respondent, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.

On November 4, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Sections 3 and 10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, consolidated the complaint and representation cases and ordered the Regional Director to conduct an investigation of representatives and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.

Upon the charge duly filed by the U. A. W. A., the Board by the Regional Director, issued its complaint dated November 9, 1938, against the respondent alleging that it had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint and the petition, accompanied by notices of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the U. A. W. A.

The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1) from April 1 to September 1, 1937, encouraged, sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the formation of and contributed support to Unit 10 of the American Labor League, herein called the League, (2) from April 1, 1938, to the date of the issuance of complaint encouraged, sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the formation of and contributed support to Unit 25 of the League, and (3) by the aforementioned acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.

On November 23, 1938, the respondent filed its answer denying the alleged unfair labor practices, and moving that the complaint be dismissed. On November 25, 1938, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to make it more definite and certain.

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Detroit, Michigan, from November 28 to December 8, 1938, inclusive, before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion by Units 10 and 25 for permission to intervene. The Board, the respondent, and Units 10 and 25 were represented by counsel and the U. A. W. A. by an official, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.

At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent renewed its motion t6 make the complaint more definite and certain. The Trial Exam iner denied the motion, but stated that if, at the close of the testimony offered by the Board, the respondent was surprised, he would grant a motion for a continuance to enable respondent to prepare its defense. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner granted a continuance to the respondent from December 1, 1938, the date the Board completed its testimony, to December 3, 1938. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.

The rulings are hereby affirmed.

On December 14, 1938, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. On January 23, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found that the respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed. On February 13, 1939, the U. A. W. A. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and requested permission to file briefs, and present oral argument. The requested permission was given but was not availed of by any of the parties.

The Board has considered the exceptions and, save as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.

Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a Michigan corporation with its principal office and place of business in Detroit, Michigan. It manufactures nuts, bolts, screws, and screw-machine products in its factories located in Detroit and Chelsea, Michigan. The respondent employs approximately 200 persons in its Detroit plant. It purchased materials for its Detroit plant valued at $623,716 during the year 1937, and obtained approximately 89 per cent in value of such materials outside the State of Michigan. Its...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT