93 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

F. Burkart Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 30, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD than half the employees in the unit worked in the unit more than 80 percent of the number of weeks in the period. On these facts, we find that employment in the unit is sufficiently stable to permit an election to be held therein. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions iii Gases Nos. 5-RC-94, 90, and 700 be , and they hereby are, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] F. BURKART MANUFACTURING COMPANY' acid IN'T'ERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORK- ERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER. Case uVo. lip-R( '-1257. March 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 Milton O. Talent, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 At the hearing the Employer made a motion, joined in by Uphol- sterers International Union of North America, A. F. L., and its Local 702, one of the Intervenors herein, that the petition should be dis- missed upon the ground that the Petitioner had caused, fomented, and incited a strike at the Employer's plant in order to entrap the Employer and the Upholsterers International Union of North Amer- ica, A. F. L., and its Local 702, into reopening and revising a pres- ently existing contract between them and that by reason thereof the Petitioner should not be permitted to take advantage of the situa- tion created by it to file and have considered the instant petition. This motion was referred to the Board. If the Employer and the Intervenor Upholsterers International Union of North America, I The Employer ' s name appears as amended at the hearing 2 The hearing in this matter was scheduled for 10 a m , December 4, 1950 In view of the fact that all parties were not present at the appointed time, the hearing officer granted a recess of 1 hour At approximately 11 a in, the heating officer proceeded filth the hearing having denied the motions of Upholsterers Inteinational Union of North America, A. F L , and its Local 702 , one of the Intervenors heiem , and the Employer to continue the hearing because no representative had appeared for Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, Â«hich apparently had an interest in this proceeding Under the circumstances. particularly as the Hod Carriers had received due notice of the hearing , we do not find that the hearing officer abused his discretion in so proceeding See Howard County Lumber Co , Inc, 86 NLRB 512 3 Hood Bay Salmon Company, 83 NLRB 656 , Parks - Belk Company of Elizabetliton, 77 NLRB 429, and cases cited therein. 93 NLRB No. 183. F. BURKART MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1093 A. F. L., and its Local 702 intended to predicate their motion upon conduct which might be found to constitute an unfair labor prac- tice, we find the evidence adduced at the hearing in support thereof inadmissible as the Board does not litigate unfair labor practice mat- ters in a representation proceeding.3 Apart from any aspect of unfair labor practices which the Petitioner's conduct might connote we find that such conduct presents no circumstances of such special character as to require us to override one of the primary purposes of the statute, namely, the guarantee of freedom of choice of a bargaining representative to employees.4 Accordingly, this motion is hereby denied. 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' [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Mur- dock]. 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 Upholsterers International Union of North America, A. F. L., and its Local 702, herein called Intervenor Up- holsterers, and International Association of Machinists, herein called Intervenor Machinists, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. On March 28, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor Uphol- sterers entered into a collective bargaining agreement which provided that it should be continued in effect until March 28, 1951, and there- after automatically renewed unless terminated by either party by notice to the other in writing at least 60 days prior to March 28, 1951. On October 13, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor Upholsterers executed a supplemental agreement which, inter alia, extended the ex- piration date of the contract to March 28, 1952. The petition herein was filed on October 11, 1950. The supplemental agreement cannot constitute a bar to this proceeding inasmuch as the petition was filed before its execution. Moreover, under well-established Board doctrine, the supplemental agreement constituted a premature exten- sion of the 1950 contract, and the contract as extended cannot act as a bar to a rival petition seasonably filed before the automatic renewal date of the original contract 6 In these circumstances, we find, con- trary to the contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor Uphol- sterers, that the existing contract is no bar to this proceeding. 4 Cf. Albion Malleable Iron Company, 90 NLRB 1640. 6 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record in this case and the brief of the Employer, in our opinion , adequately present the issues and contentions of the pasties. 6 McCord Corporation, 90 NLRB No 101, and cases cited therein. 1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees, including inspectors, but excluding office timekeepers and office salaried employees, assistant foremen, foremen, assistant super- visors, and supervisors. The Intervenor Machinists concurs in the unit contention of the Petitioner. The Employer and the Intervenor Upholsterers would exclude the inspectors who were excluded from their contract unit and who they contend are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. At its Cairo, Illinois, plant which is involved herein, the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of batts and padding made of sisal or a combination of both for the automotive and upholsterers indus- tries. The record reveals that this plant is divided into three depart- ments, namely, production, maintenance, and inspection. A general superintendent is in charge of the entire plant. There are two or three sections in maintenance, each under a foreman; and four sections in operating or production, each under a foreman. There is a chief in- spector in charge.of the inspectors. The Employer has approximately 12 inspectors who work through- out the production department and each inspects the work of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 7 or 8 production workers. The in- spectors are responsible for the passing or rejection of all goods com- ing off the production lines and for seeing that changes made on the lines from one size or specification to another are made correctly. The Employer's vice president testified without contradiction that in- spectors have direct supervision and control of production workers on the line who handle merchandise as it nears completion and that, al- though a foreman is in charge of operations of a particular produc- tion section, the inspector has authority to demand the transfer or layoff of any production worker whose work the inspector is directing on the production line. Moreover, the Employer gives considerable weight to the recommendations of inspectors with respect to hiring, firing, and disciplining of production employees. Although in most cases the Board has found that inspectors gen- erally do not have supervisory authority ,7 we find under the circum- stances here present that the inspectors are supervisors and shall ex- clude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate., We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Cairo, Illinois, plant, excluding inspectors, office time- keepers, office and salaried employees, assistant foremen, foremen, as- sistant supervisors and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a 7 See for example , R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company , 88 NLRB 600. 8 Mine Safety Appliances Company , 85 NLRB 290. SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO, INC. 1095 unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this, volume.] SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO, INC. STATION WCPO, WCPO-FM,. WCPO-TV and THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1031. March 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 Allan A. Bruckner, 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 em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all engineers and technicians em- ployed at Station WCPO, WCPO-FM, and WCPO-TV in Cincin- nati, Ohio. - The Intervenor, Local Union No. 1224, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, contends that a collective bargaining contract between the Intervenor and the Employer is a bar to the instant petition, insofar as the unit sought includes engineers and technicians employed at Station WCPO. The Employer and the Petitioner contend that the alleged contract is not a bar. On November 30, 1948, the Employer and Intervenor ex- ecuted a contract effective from August 1, 1948, to October 31, 1949, providing for automatic renewal absent written notice 60 days prior to, the termination date. This contract covered only the engineers and technicians employed by Station WCPO. Timely notice in writing was given on August 31, 1949, under the contract by the Intervenor for proposed contract modifications. Nego- tiations over changes in the contract reached an impasse on December 2, 1949, the Employer rejecting the Intervenor's request for inclusion in the contract of employees at WCPO-FM and WCPO-TV pending Board certification . Further meetings were held in abeyance , pending 93 NLRB No. 184.