Kiise- Manufacturing Company, Employer Fnl Local 415, Industrial Workers Union, Upholsterers International Union Of North America, Afl, Petitioner, 207 (1947)

In the Matter of KIISE- MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER fnl LOCAL 415, INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION, UPHOLSTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 7-R-2435.-Deeided January 20, 1947 Mr. Stephen F. Dunn, of Grand Rapids, Mich.5 for the Employer.

Mr. Joseph M. Jacobs, of Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner.

Messrs. Maurice Sugar and Morton A. Eden, of Detroit, Mich., and Mr. Harry Weinstock, of New York City, for the Intervenor.

Mr. Henry W. de Kozmian, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on October 24, 1946, before Harold A. Cranefield, 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 INational Labor Relations Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Klise Manufacturing Company is a Michigan corporation engaged in the manufacture of ornamental wood products and plastic fabrications at its plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. During the representative first 6 months of 1946 the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $200,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to the Employer from points outside the State of Michigan.

During the same period the Employer sold products valued in excess of $400,000, of which approximately 75 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Michigan.

207 We find that the Employer 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 American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.

   Local 415, United Furniture Workers of America, herein called Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 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 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 In accordance with the stipulation of the...