Metal Office Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 993 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of METAL OFFICE FURNITURE COMPANY and UNITED
FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 415, CIO
Case No_ R-5714.-Decided August 3, 1943
Mr. Stephen F. Dunn, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. G. 0. Brown, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Union.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by United Furniture Workers
of America, Local 415, CIO, herein called the Union, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Metal Office Furniture Company, Grand Rapids,
Michigan , herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Harold A. Cranefield, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held the
Grand Rapids, Michigan, on July 7, 1943. The Company and the
Union appeared, participated; and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,,
All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Metal Office Furniture Company is engaged in the manufacture of
metal furniture at four plants in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The prin-
' At the hearing the Union filed a motion to amend and enlarge the bargaining unit
alleged appropriate in its amended petition. The Trial Examiner granted the motion and
proceeded with the hearing . At the close of the hearing on July 7, 1943, the Trial Ex-
aminer adjourned the hearing to July 13, 1943, to give the Company opportunity to pre-
sent additional evidence upon the issues raised by the amendment . On July 12, 1943, the
Company advised the Regional Office that it waived further hearing in this proceeding and
no further_hearing was held.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 156.
993
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RElATIONS BOARD
cipal raw materials used in its operations are sheet metal, steel tubing,
hardware, linoleum, and crating lumber. From January 1 to March
31, 1943, a period fairly representative of its current operations, the
Company purchased raw materials valued at approximately $200,000,
of which 90 percent was received at its plants from points outside
Michigan. Products finished at the Company's plants during the
same period are valued at approximately $500,000, of which 90 percent
was shipped from its plants to points outside Michigan.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 415, is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that production and maintenance employees
of the Company at Plants 1, 2, and 3, excluding supervisory and
clerical employees, constitute an appropriate unit. The Company
contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate and that employees
at Plants 1, 2, 3, and 4 constitute a single appropriate unit.
The Company originally began its furniture manufacture in one
building on a small piece of ground at Grand Rapids, Michigan. As
its business developed and it needed more space for its operations, it
built- a factory on near available ground, transferred employees and
departments from the older plant into the new, and hired additional
employees as required. In this way the Company has acquired four
separate buildings for its production operations, known as Plants 1,
2, 3, and 4. Plants 2 and 3 are adjoining, about one-half mile distant
from Plant 1, and about 2 blocks distant from Plant 4. Plant 4,
the newest factory, has been in operation about 2 years. In normal
times the Company manufactures metal furniture for office use. At
the present time it is manufacturing bedroom and cabin furniture
for use on ships of the United States Navy.
At Plant 1 the Company maintains its offices, where all plant,
financial, and employment records are kept. All supervisory control
and orders for purchase of all raw materials and their delivery are.
centered, at Plant 1. To insure so far as it is possible uniform,
employment among all employees, work to be performed is appor-
tioned at Plant 1 among the several plants, where duplicate facilities
are in part available. There are' skilled and unskilled employees at
each plant. All employees are listed on one pay roll, and are subject
to the same employment policies, and generally to the same working
conditions. The Company pays uniform wages for similar work.
METAL OFFICE FURNITURE COMPANY 995
Employees may be moved from one plant to another, and have been
so transferred as occasion has required. The Company, however,
does not favor the policy of free exchange of employees among its
plants. Workers at the several plants are generally engaged in the
same type of production work, except that upholstery work on all
furniture made by the Company is presently done in a department
at Plant 4. Parts of finished products are fabricated in the several
plants. The seats, backs, and legs of chairs are fabricated in Plants
2 and 3; metal tubing is bent and welded, upholstery work added, and
the chairs assembled at Plant 4. Products of all plants are pooled
for shipment. As the Company has set up its production flow, facili-
ties in the four plants are necessary to an effective work program.
The four so-called plants actually constitute interrelated departments
of integrated operations, and manifestly measure the scope of the
appropriate bargaining unit.
The Union freely admits that the flow of work and general working
conditions in and about the Company's plants-as much under normal
conditions as under the present circumstances-clearly support the
Company's contention that employees at all four plants constitute a
single appropriate bargaining unit. The Union, however, urges that
a unit restricted to employees at Plants 1, 2, and 3 is presently justified
on the extent of its organization among the Company's employees.
In support of its petition and to indicate the extent of its organiza-
tion, the Union submitted 101 authorization cards.2 Of these cards,
2 are dated in October 1942, 1 in March 1943, 51 in May 1943, 32 in
June 1943, and 15 are undated. All dated cards purporting to bear
names of employees in Plants 2 and 3, except 5, bear dates in May 1943.
Of the 32 cards bearing the names of employees in Plant 1, 2 are dated
in May and 30 in June 1943. These cards and other evidence submit-
ted at the hearing clearly indicate that organizational activity among
the Company's employees at Plants 2 and 3 began about 2 months prior
to the hearing on July 7, 1943; that it progressed rapidly ; and that
the Union filed its original petition restricted to those employees on
May 25, 1943, upon the Company's refusal to bargain with the Union
on their behalf. The evidence further discloses that in June substan-
2 The Union submitted to the Regional Director 63 cards, of which 59 bear apparently
genuine signatures of employees on the Company 's pay roll of May 29, 1943 Of these 59
cards, 39 bear the names of employees at Plant 2 ; 20, the names of employees at Plant 3
On the pay roll of May 29 , 1943 , there were listed 96 employees at Plants 2 and 3
At the hearing the Union presented to the Trial Examiner 6 additional cards bearing
apparently genuine signatures of employees at Plants 2 and 3, and 32 cards bearing appar-
ently genuine signatures of employees at Plant 1 Subsequent to the hearing , these cards
were checked against the pay roll of July 8, 1943, which listed 93 employees at Plant 1
After the heainig the Trial Examiner made a check of the cards submitted to him and
forwarded a written statement of his findings to the Board at Washington, copies of which
were served on the Company and the Union In accordance with the stipulation of the
pai ties made at the hearing, the Trial Examiner 's written statement is hereby made, and is,
pact of the record in this proceeding
540612-44-\ of 51-64
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA'TIO'NS BOARD
tial results of the Union's efforts appeared among employees at
Plant 1 and that, as a result, the Union amended its proposed unit
limited to employees at Plants 2 and 3 to include employees at
Plant 1. There are approximately 100 employees at Plants 2 and 3,
100 at Plant 1, and- 100 at Plant 4. The Union submitted no evidence
of the extent of its organization among employees at Plant 4. The
Union admits that it is presently engaged in organizing them and
introduced no evidence to indicate that their organization is not en-
tirely feasible. No sufficient time has elapsed since the Union first
started its campaign at the plants from which any deduction can be
made that employees at Plant 4 have had adequate opportunity to
organize and have repudiated it. No other special circumstances are
present which would justify the Board in finding that organization on
a four-plant basis is not to be expected within a reasonable time.
Under these circumstances, we find that the proposed unit is inap-
propriate for bargaining, and we shall dismiss without prejudice the
-petition of the Union filed herein .3
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the amended
petition is not appropriate, as found in Section III, above, we find
that no question has arisen concerning the representation of employees
of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition, as amended, for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of Metal Office
Furniture Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, filed herein by United
Furniture Workers of America, Local 415, CIO, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
I
e Matter o t Pickett-Brown Manufacturing Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 34; and cases
cited therein. _.Ltd