Coast Drum and Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1135 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

COAST DRUM AND BOX COMPANY 1135
reason of the failure of the Congress of Industrial Organizations
to have complied with the requirements of section 9 (f), (g), or
(h) of the aforesaid Act prior to December 22, 1949, or by reason
of the failure of the American Federation of Labor to have
complied with the provisions of section 9 (f), (g), or (h) of the
aforesaid Act prior to November 7, 1947:.. .
This amendment, as the Committee Reports expressly state,5 was
designed in part to protect, against charges of unfair labor practice,
parties who acted in reliance upon certificates issued by the Board
under circumstances such as those present here.
In view of the foregoing amendment, we find no merit in the
petition herein and shall accordingly deny it.
Order
IT IS ORDERED that the petition of John Cavicchia be, and it hereby is,
denied.
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
5 Sen. Rep. No. 646 on S. 1959, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951), p. 2; H. Rep. No. 1082 on
S. 1959, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951), pp. 1-2.
COAST DRUM AND Box COMPANY and T. F. MARTIN , PETITIONER, and
Box MAKERS , NOVELTY AND SPECIALTY , WOODWORKERS UNION, LOCAL
3036, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL. Case No. 90-RD 53. October 30, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing was held
before Nathan R. Berke, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair-
man Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the repre-
sentative of certain employees of the Employer, as defined in Section 9
(a) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization recognized by the
96 NLRB No. 178.
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees
designated in the petition.
3. No 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, for the following reasons :
T. E. Martin, the Petitioner herein, was employed as a foreman in
a subsidiary corporation of the Employer until 1942. Since that date,
he has worked as a machine operator in the tub cover department of
the Employer. As part of his duties, he trains new employees-from
two to five in number-and directs their work until they are able to
operate their own machines. The evidence is undisputed that he has
the authority to make effective recommendations regarding the reten-
tion or the discharge of new employees.' Moreover, he has attended
meetings of foremen pertaining to the work of his department and has
substituted for the foreman of the department during the latter's
absence.
We find that the Petitioner is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act, and is therefore ineligible to represent the Employer's em-
ployees in this proceeding.2 We shall for this reason . dismiss the
petition.,
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
1 The Employer's manager testified that he would accord great weight to such recom-
mendations.
2 Clyde J. Merris, 77 NLRB 1375. See also Great Atlantic l Pacific Tea Co., 86 NLRB Si.
8 We find it unnecessary therefore to consider the other issues raised in this proceeding.
W. F. & JOHN BARNES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 13-R(ir-'2091. Octo-
ber 30, 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 Richard C. Swander, hearing
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-meinber
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
96 NLRB No. 186.