Continental Carbon, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1026 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their bargaining representative, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CONTINENTAL CARBON, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No.8-RC-
1197. June 1, 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 Charles A. Fleming, 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-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
employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor assert that their current con-
tract is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner denies this assertion
on the ground, among others, that the contract contains an illegal
union-security clause.
The Employer and the Intervenor, which was authorized in June
1948 to enter into a union-security contract, entered into their current
contract on February 27, 1951. This contract contains the following
paragraph concerning union membership :
By agreement of both parties to this agreement it is a condition
of employment that all employees of the employer are required to
join the Union after they have been on the pay-roll thirty (30)
days, and it is a continuing condition of employment that such
employees of the employer shall remain good standing members
of the Union.
I The Employer and the Intervenor , Federal Labor Union, No 18907, American Federa-
tion of Labor , contend that the petition should have been dismissed as the Petitioner
did not submit evidence of representation within the 48-hour period specified in the Board's
Statement of Procedure , Sec. 101.16 We find no merit in this contention as the Board
has repeatedly held that representation evidence is an administrative expedient , not subject
to direct or collateral attack See Standard Oil Company ( Indiana ), 80 NLRB 1275
94 NLRB No. 148.
CONTINENTAL CARBON, INC. 1027
The Employer and the Intervenor amended this contract on March
12, 1951, by deleting the paragraph quoted above and substituting in
its stead the following paragraph:
Membership in the Union shall- be a condition of employment of
each employee after he has completed thirty (30)' calendar days
service with the Employer, or thirty (30) days after the effective
date of this agreement, whichever is the later, subject, however,
to the limitations upon this requirement set forth in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Petitioner requested recognition of the Employer by telegram
on February 16, 1951, and confirmed this request by letter on February
20. 1951. The Petitioner then filed the petition herein on February
23, 1951, and submitted evidence of representation on March 9, 1951.
We find the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor without
merit. The contract of February 27, 1951, does not meet the require-
ments of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act in that it does not accord all
employees subject to its coverage the statutory 30-day period allowed
for becoming union members after the effective date of the contract 2
The amendment of March 12, 1951, cannot operate as a bar as it was
executed, after the filing of the petition herein.3
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the agreement of all the parties, we find that
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Cleve-
land, Ohio, plant including firemen, group leaders,4 and factory cleri-
cals,b but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of the Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2 Blaue Ribbon Creamery. 94 NLRB 201.
a Cf All Metal Pickling Corporation, 85 NLRB 857.
4 The parties stipulated, and upon the entire record we find, that the group leaders
are nonsupervisory employees , and as such are properly included in the unit herein
found appropriate.
5 The parties were in dispute with respect to the unit placement of Esther Schueller
and Catherine Carroll. The Petitioner contends that these individuals are office clericals,
and that Schueller is a supervisor . The Employer and the Intervenor contend that they
are tactorv clericals These two individuals work in an office on the second floor of the
Employers plant whereas the office clerical empl ees work on the first floor Both
groups of clerical employees are under the supervision of the office manager. There is
no interchange of employees between the two groups The duties of Schueller and Carroll
consist in computing all payroll data for production employees Their records are
compiled daily from time tickets submitted by these employees , and frequent checking with
the production employees is necessary Upon the entire record we find that Schueller
and Carroll are factory clerical employees we further find that the direction exercised
br Schueller over Cac i oll is the type that is customarily exercised by experienced employees
over those who are less skilled 'W e•shrtll therefore include both Schueller and Carroll' nn
the pcodnetion and maintenance unit
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
HARRISBURG RAILWAYS COMPANY afar' AMAI,GAMA'1'l1> ASSOCIA'T'ION OF
STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR ('OACII .EMPldiviats oI,
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.^-IRC-10!.'1. Jams 1, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under' Section ,) (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ramey Donovan,
hearing officer. The hearing oflicer's ridings luade at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby aflirnied. For the reasons
given in paragraph numbered 3, below, the h intious of the Employer
and Harrisburg Railways Employee Association, herein called the
Intervenor, to dismiss the petition upon the ground that an existing
collective bargaining agreement is a bar to this proceeding, are denied.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Boa rd finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commeire wit lint the nu'ailing of
the Act?
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cert.aili em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a collective bar-
gaining contract effective from January 1, 1950, to December 31, 1951,
is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner asserts that. the contract
cannot operate as a bar because (a) the Intervenor is defunct, and (b)
a schism in the membership of the Intervenor creates a doubt of the
continued representation by the Intervenor of the employees involved
herein.
The Intervenor holds regular meetings at monthly intervals.
Notices of meetings are customarily posted on bulletin boards in the
shops several days in advance of the scheduled meeting. Notices of a
regular meeting to be held on December 4, 1950, were posted in the
usual way.
The December 4 meeting was attended by 68 members, or about
double the number usually present at monthly meetings. Those in
attendance constituted approximately 30 percent of the Intervenor's
total membership. By a v( * of 61 to 4 (3 â–º nenibers did not vote) the
members present voted to dissolve the Intervenor and affilia te with the
i Harrisburg Railways Company, 84 NLRB 678 ; W. C. King, d/ b/a Local Transit Lines,
91 NLRB 623. The parties stipulated that, except for an approximate 13 percent decline
in the number of revenue passengers carried there has boon no substantial change in the
Employer 's operations since the Board ' s decision, supra . in June 1949 assert lug jurisdiction
over the Employer.
94 NLRB No. 151.