Electrol, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 740 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ELECTROL, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER and ULSTER COUNTY LODGE
No. 1562, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS. Case No.
2-RM-232. March 9,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Merton C. Bernstein,
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, 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.'
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
The Employer has for some time recognized the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative for its clerical employees, pur-
suant to a certification of its international union issued by the Board
on January 23, 1947 2 At the hearing, the Employer did not question
the majority status of the Union, and admitted that it had an existing
contract with the Union as the bargaining representative of such
employees .3
Accordingly, we find that no question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within
I The International Association of Machinists was permitted to intervene on the basis of
its ceitification fir the clerical unit involved See paragraph 3
s Case No 2-R-7407, unpublished
' The parties are in dispute as to the confidential status of three secretarial positions, as
follow s :
(1) Rosemary Murphy is secretary to the personnel factory manager, who participates
in negotiations on behalf of the Employer with the Uni,)n handles gi iovances, and partici-
pates in the formulation of the labor relations policies of the Employer we believe,
therefore , that she is a confidential employee Minnesota and Ontaizo Paper Co, 92
NLRB 711
(2) Catherine McAuliffe is secietary to the assistant secretary-treasnier , who deals
with financial matters, and has no responsibility with regard to labor relations As it
does not appear from the record that McAuliffe has any duties with respect to matters
affecting the labor relations of the Employer, she is not, in our opinion, a confidential
employee Oklahoma State Union of The Faimers' Educational and Cooperative Union
of America, 92 NLRB 248
(3) There is a dispute as to the confidential status of the position of secretary to the
vice president Howevei, as there is no present incumbent of this secretarial position, 'we
express no opinion with respect thereto
93 NLRB No. 123
TEXAS TELEPONE COMPANY 741
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.'
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, it is hereby ordered
that the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
4 W. K B. H, Inc, 81 NLRB 63, Merrill Stevens Dry Dock & Repair Company, 79
NLRB 962
TEXAS TELEPHONE COMPANY and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B 1162, AFL, INTERVENOR. Case No.
16-RC-636. March 9, 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 Y. Latimer,
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, 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
The Intervenor and Employer contend that an overriding contract,
expiring July 1, 1950, between Telephone Services, Inc.,' and the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, and made
a part of the basic contract of 1947, between the Intervenor and Em-
ployer, is a bar to the petition. We do not agree. The contract is
not a collective bargaining contract. It contains no provisions relat-
ing to terms and conditions of work, but provides only for the furnish-
ing of, and procedures for, arbitration services to the parties. Such
a contract is no bar to a representation proceeding?
The Intervenor further urges its basic contract executed August 20,
1947, effective August 1, 1947, and supplemental amendments thereto.
I Formerly Telephone Management Company.
2 Danner Press of Canton, Inc, 91 NLRB 237.
93 NLRB No. 108.
0