Triangle Auto Spring Corporation, Employer And United Construction Workers, United Mine Workers Or America, Petitioner, 750 (1947)

In the Matter of TRIANGLE AUTO SPRING CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, UNITED MINE WORKERS or AMERICA, PETITIONER Case No. 6-R-1510.-Decided November 25, 1946 Mr. Frank G. Smith, of Clearfield, Pa., for the Employer.

Mr. Peter Ferrara, of Indiana, Pa., for the Petitioner.

Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Clearfield,

Pennsylvania, on August 15, 1946, before Joseph Lepie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Triangle Auto Spring Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the business of manufacturing automobile leaf springs at its plant located at Du Bois, Pennsylvania. During the period from July 1, 1945, to June 30, 1946, the Employer purchased raw materials for use in its operations valued in excess of $200,000, of which approximately 78 percent represented shipments to its plant from outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer, manufactured products valued in excess of $200,000, of which approximately 75 percent represented shipments made to points outside the Commonwealth.

We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.

2. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with United Mine Workers of America, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.

   750 III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.

   We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.

4. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees, including the watchman I and janitor, but excluding office and clerical employees, the shipping clerk,2 and all other supervisors. The Employer takes no position as to the appropriateness of the requested unit.

   On the basis of the entire record, we find, in accordance with the unopposed...