A. Siegel & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 471 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

A. SIEGEL & SONS, INC.
Order
471
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the con§ideration of the above
Decision and Order.
A. SIEGEL & SONS5 INC. and LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION 80, CIO,
PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-997. May 15, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before E. Don Wilson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are Hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.,
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees'of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
On February 2, 1950, the Employer and Local 80, Food, Tobacco,
Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, CIO, herein-
after called FTA Local 80, executed a collective bargaining contract
which provided that it was to continue in force and effect until
December 31, 1950. On September 27, 1950, the parties entered into
a supplemental agreement which, among other things, extended the
February 2 contract to December 31, 1951. The Petitioner, who filed
its petition on November 9, 1950, contends that the supplemental agree-
ment prematurely extended the basic contract, and, therefore, that the
contract as extended cannot operate as a bar to this proceeding. The
Employer takes no position with regard to the contract bar issue.
As the petition was timely with respect to the contract's original expi-
1 At the hearings , the Petitioner moved that the request to intervene of Local 80, FTA
Division of Distributive , Processing and Office Workers of America , hereinafter called
the Intervenor , be denied . The hearing officer allowed the Intervenor to participate in
the hearing but referred the Petitioner ' s motion to the Board . The motion is denied for
reasons set forth below.
94 NLRB No. 78.
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ration date, we find that the contract does not bar a present determi-
nation of representatives.2
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties,' we find that all
employees at the Employer's plant in Camden, New Jersey, excluding
all office and clerical employees, sales force, watchmen, truck drivers,
maintenance men, chief mechanic, assistant mechanics, managers, as-
sistant managers, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Determination of representatives :
The Petitioner contended that the Intervenor did not have sufficient
interest to appear as a party to this proceeding.
In August 1950, Food, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of
America, CIO, the parent organization of FTA Local 80, concluded
an agreement with United Office & Professional Workers of America
and with Distributive Workers Union to merge into an organization
to be known as Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America,
hereinafter called DPOWA. On October 7, 1950, the merger agree-
ment was ratified by the three unions in convention. On October 10,
1950, at a regular membership meeting of FTA Local 80, held on due
notice and attended by a number of members in excess of the number
usually in attendance at such meetings, a motion was adopted approv-
ing the withdrawal of the unit at the Employer's plant from the
newly formed DPOWA, and authorizing an application to the CIO
for a charter 4 The parties stipulated that all the present officers of
the Petitioner formerly held the same positions in FTA Local 80, and
that the Petitioner now occupies the office formerly occupied by FTA
Local 80.' The record does not indicate, however, the number of em-
ployees at the Employer's plant who are currently members of the
Petitioner or of the Intervenor, respectively.
By telegram dated October 9, 1950, FTA Division of DPOWA noti-
fied the Employer that it had suspended the officers of FTA Local 80,
that it claimed to be the bargaining representative under the contract,
that it had appointed an administrator to carry out the terms of the
contract, and that checked-off dues should be remitted to this admin-
istrator. On the following day, the Employer received a telegram
from the Petitioner in which the same representation claim was as-
serted and the same request for checked-off dues was made. Pending
a Board determination in this proceeding, the Employer, uncertain as
to the identity of the bargaining representative of its employees, is
holding the dues deducted in accordance with the contract.
In light of the foregoing events, and upon the entire record, we
2 American Steel Foundries, 85 NLRB 19.
3 The parties stipulated to the appropriateness of the unit set forth in the contract.
4 A CIO charter was awarded to the Petitioner on October 16, 1950.
CENTRAL FLORIDA BROADCASTING COMPANY 473
conclude that the Intervenor has a sufficient interest to be permitted
to intervene in this proceeding, and to be placed on the ballot a
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
S Cf. International Harvester Company, Traotor Works, 89 NLRB 212.
CENTRAL FLORIDA BROADCASTING COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUS-
TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS , PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1107. May
15, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Morgan C. Stanford, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
1 No motion to dismiss the Petition was made and no other motions made at the hearing
were referred to the Board . However, on January 22 , 1951, after the hearing, the
Employer filed a motion with the Board requesting a rehearing , and asking that this
proceeding be stayed for 30 days to allow it to file a brief, and that oral argument be held
before the Board. The Employer principally urges in support of its motion that its
interest has been materially prejudiced because the hearing officer , at the outset of the
second day of the hearing , improperly excluded Will O. Murrell , "the principal witness
and representative ," of the Employer . The request for oral argument and a stay
of the proceedings is hereby denied , as we find that the transcript of the hearing and
the Employer 's motion papers adequately present the issues.
Mr. Murrell , an attorney , is one of the owners of Station WORZ , the Employer's sole
radio station. He is also its secretary -treasurer . On the first day of the hearing, held
some 6 days before the second or adjournment date of the hearing , he and Theo Hamilton,
also an attorney , entered appearances on behalf of the Employer . Murrell participated
on that day , both as a witness and otherwise, in the hearing. The hearing officer excluded
Murrell , however, from the second day of hearing because of a scuffle which had occurred
in the hearing room just before the hearing opened , wherein Murrell had attempted to
wrest from the possession of the Petitioner 's representative a box of post cards directed
to Station WORZ from listeners to its programs, which Murrell asserted were improperly
in such representative ' s possession . Twelve of these cards were later offered in evidence
by the Petitioner . We find that the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in thus
excluding Murrell from the hearing . We further approve the hearing officer ' s ruling
refusing the Employer 's request for an order directing the Petitioner 's representative
to return the cards to the Employer , for the reason that the hearing officer was without
authority to make such an order. Although some of these cards were thereafter admitted
in evidence , the Employer as not in any manner prejudiced thereby, because the Board
has found it unnecessary to consider any of these cards in determining whether or not to
assert jurisdiction over the Employer.
We further find no merit in the Employer 's contention that by Murrell 's exclusion the
Employer was deprived of opportunity for producing further testimony on material issues.
The only issues raised relate to the assertion of jurisdiction over the Employer and the
exclusion of certain persons, alleged to be supervisors , from the unit . As to the first
of these , Murrell 's testimony on the first day of hearing , apart from and without consider-
ing the post cards submitted by the Petitioner , affords ample basis as hereinafter found,
to justify the Board ' s assertion of jurisdiction . As to the second of these issues , Murrell,
in testimony on the first day of hearing , stated the Employer's position as to which
employees it contended were supervisors , and said specifically that he was not the only
officer of the Company familiar with these matters . Despite this assertion by Murrell,
Hamilton , an experienced counsel who was not excluded from the hearing, elected not
to remain but also withdrew at the time of Murrell 's exclusion.
In view of all the foregoing , the Employer 's motion is denied.
94 NLRB No. 79.