The Wheland Company, Employer And United Steelworkers Of America, Cio, Petitioner, 349 (1947)

In the Matter of THE WHELAND COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 10-R-2457.-Decided April 11, 1947 Messrs. W. D. Spears, S. W. Johnson, and J. E. Black, all of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Employer.

Mr. J. C. Stafford, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Petitioner.

Mr. Draper Doyal, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Messrs. W. G. Kissinger and Claude L. Dudney, both of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Intervenor.

Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chattanooga, Tennessee, on February 18, 1947, before William M. Pate, 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 The Wheland Company, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of oil well drilling machinery, sawmill machinery, gray iron castings, and related products at its plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. During the 1-year period ending February 1, 1947, the Employer purchased raw materials worth more than $25,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Tennessee. During the same period, the Employer sold finished products valued in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State.

The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations.Act.

2. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.

   International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.

3. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.1 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...