Corning Glass Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 775 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CORNING GLASS WORKS 775
is affiliated with Yellow Cab Company of San Francisco , the Yellow Cab Com-
pany of Alameda, and the Airport Transit Corporation , warrant a different con-
clusion in view of the fact that all of these companies operate as separate enter-
prises and there is no showing of any integration of their labor relations"
Moreover , outside of the last-named Company, there is no showing that the
operations of these other companies affect commerce any more than do those of
the Respondent . In the opinion of the undersigned , Respondent is not engaged
in interstate commerce in any substantial sense and , while certain aspects
of its business may not be wholly unrelated to commerce , it is believed that
the effect of any labor dispute in this Company on interstate commerce would
be too remote to justify taking jurisdiction in this case.
After due deliberation , and for the reasons above stated , the undersigned be-
ing of the opinion, without otherwise considering the merits of the case, that
the complaint should be dismissed ; now, therefore,
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's motions to dismiss the complaint
upon jurisdictional grounds be, and the same hereby are, granted ; and
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint against Respondent
Yellow Cab Company of California, and Respondent Local 640, Chauffeurs
Union , Affiliated With the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A. F. of L., be, and the same hereby is,
dismissed.
Any party may obtain a review of the foregoing order , pursuant to Section
203.27 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, by
filing a request therefor with the Board stating the grounds for review, and
immediately on such filing serving a copy thereof on the Regional Director and
the other parties. Unless such request for review is filed within ten (10) days
from the date of this order of dismissal , the case shall be closed.
JOHN LEwis,
Trial Ewaminer.
Dated : April 11, 1950.
12 Whitfield d/b/a Whitfield Bus Lines , 88 NLRB 261 ; Acme Corruguated Box Co., 88
NLRB 96. It may be noted that a labor stoppage in the San Francisco and Alameda
operations in the preceding year had no effect whatsoever on the Los Angeles operation.
CORNING GLASS WORKS and FEDERATION OF GLASS, CERAMIC AND SILICA
SAND WORKERS OF AMERICA , ClO1 PETITIONER . Case No. 7-RC-
1151. March 12,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold L. Hudson,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed' The Em-
I The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner failed
to submit evidence of representation to complete its 30 percent showing within the 48-hour
period specified in the Board's Statements of Procedure , Section 202 .16. This motion is
denied. As we have repeatedly stated, the adequacy of a showing of interest is a question
for administrative determination , not subject to direct or collateral attack . Stokely Foods,
Inc., 78 NLRB 842, and cases there cited.
93 NLRB No. 121.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer's request for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record
and the briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
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, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 and American Flint Glass Workers' Union of
North America, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, are labor
organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their contract cover-
ing the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent, signed
August 29, 1950, and effective to March 1, 1952, is a bar to this pro-
ceeding. The petition herein was filed October 6, 1950. The Peti-
tioner contends that the contract is not a bar because of expansion
within the appropriate unit.
The Employer's Albion, Michigan, television tube manufacturing
plant is a newly constructed plant, and its first production operations
did not begin until late June or early July 1950. The plant was
constructed by a general contractor who was responsible for the
erection of the building and the installation of most of the plant's
machinery and equipment. Some of the construction and installa-
tion work had not been completed at the time of the hearing on
December 12, 1950.
On August 23 and 25, 1950, the Intervenor made claims of repre-
sentation upon the Employer for certain of the employees at the
Albion plant. On August 28, 1950, the Employer agreed to meet
with the Intervenor, but advised the Intervenor that it must prove
that it represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate
unit as a prerequisite to recognition. The Employer and the Inter-
venor met on August 29 and the Intervenor submitted membership
application cards for checking against the Employer's records. The
Employer found that 181 of its 239 employees had designated the
Intervenor as their bargaining agent, and thereupon entered into a
contract with the Intervenor that same day.
On October 3, 1950, the Petitioner made a representation claim
upon the Employer. The Employer on October 4, 1950, advised the
Petitioner that it had contracted with the Intervenor on August 29,
and declined to recognize or meet with the Petitioner. On October
6, 1950, the Petitioner filed its petition seeking a plant-wide unit of
production and maintenance employees?
2 The parties agreed that the plant -wide unit sought by the Petitioner is appropriate.
CORNING GLASS WORKS 777
The record discloses that on August 29, 1950, when the Employer
executed its contract with the Intervenor, there were approximately
239 employees in the plant. Of this number 72 were in the sealing
department ; 62 were on inspection and finishing ; 27 were in the ship-
ping department; and 36 were on maintenance. The production em-
ployees in this group were engaged in processing formed tubes
manufactured at another of the Employer's plants. The Employer
did not begin to manufacture complete tubes at the Albion plant until
after August 29, 1950. Thus, the record discloses that the mixing
operations at the Albion plant, which involved the mixing of in-
gredients for glass making, did not commence until September 4,
1950. The first melting tank was put in operation around August
31, and it took approximately 2 weeks to bring the temperature in
the tank up to the point necessary for production. The second melt-
ing tank was placed in operation 3 or 4 weeks later. The Employer's
3.presses used in the forming operation had been installed on August
29, but they were being used only for experimental runs. At the time
of the hearing the Employer had 6 employees in the mixing depart-
ment, 32 employees on the melting tank operation, and 64 employees
in_ the forming department. These employees had been transferred
to these departments from other departments, which were in operation
on August 29, 1950.
'At the time of the hearing, the Employer had a total of 620 pro-
duction and maintenance employees as against 239 such employees
at the time the August 29 contract was signed. The Albion plant is
now in full operation and it is not contemplated that any new
departments will be added.
While a number of new operations have been added and new ma-
chinery has been installed in the instant plant since August 29, the
fact that the new operations are being performed by employees who
formerly worked on the old operations demonstrates that there has
been no material change since August 29 in the character and skills of
the plant complement. In view of this demonstrated interchange-
ability of personnel between the new and the old operations, we be-
lieve that the employees engaged in the old operations on August 29
were representative of all the employees currently within the unit.
Accordingly, we find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that
because of the expansion in the unit, the contract is no longer operative
as a bar to an election.3 We shall dismiss the petition without preju-
dice, however, to the filing of a new petition at an appropriate time
before the contract's terminal date.
Decker Clothes Inc, 83 NLRB 484; Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB
131 ; ef. Ford Motor Company, 80 NLRB 1094; United States Rubber Company, 80 NLRB
1039; and Walnut Ridge Manufacturing Company, Inc., 80 NLRB 1196.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and INSURANCE
AND ALLIED WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE , CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 1-RC-1659. March 13, 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 Robert E. Greene, hearing
officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 UOPWA has requested
oral argument. As the record, briefs, and motion papers adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties, the request is hereby
denied.
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 Petitioner, and National Federation of Insurance Agents
Council, AFL, an intervenor, herein called AFL, and United Office and
Professional Workers of America, an intervenor, herein called
1 On February 8, 1951, nearly 2 months after the close of the hearing on December 15,
1950, the UOPWA moved to reopen the hearing to take testimony that on or about
December 8 , 1950, a conference of employees in the unit herein involved met to establish a
policy for negotiating a wage increase, that on December 12 and 13, 1950, negotiations
were had with the Employer, and an increase agreed upon ; that the Petitioner conceded
UOPWA's status as an appropriate bargaining agent and its right to negotiate; that an
increase was paid to employees on January 17, 1951, and another will be paid before
expiration of the contract on June 15, 1951 ; that in December 1950, and since, many
employees have signed new checkoff cards in favor of UOPWA ; and, finally, that the
Employer continues to recognize UOPWA and UOPWA continues to administer, the
contract. -
2 Except for the fact of actual payment of one installment of the wage increase , all the
points raised in the motion could have been litigated during the hearing. No request was
made to do so, or to continue the hearing for the purpose. The motion is therefore denied.
During the course of questioning J. H. Durkin, former president of UOPWA and now
secretary-treasurer of DPOWA, the Petitioner requested the minutes of the UOPWA
convention at which the merger agreement was approved, and of the DPOWA constitutional
convention. Durkin replied that because of the illness of the stenographer, the minutes
had not been transcribed . When asked the name of the stenographer by the hearing officer,
Durkin refused to answer . The Petitioner moved to strike Durkin's testimony. The
motion was referred to the Board. In view of the fact that Durkin offered no adequate
explanation for his refusal , the Petitioner's motion to strike is hereby granted. See
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Section 102.58 (d).
93 NLRB No. 132.