General Metals Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1490 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The Petitioners herein filed a joint petition. The Employer
contends that it is improper for the Board to entertain a petition
jointly filed by two unions for the reason that they do not together
constitute "a labor organization" within the meaning of the Act. The
Employer also maintains that the Petitioners are separate entities for
the purpose of determining showing of interest. Moreover, the Em-
ployer indicates that it has no effective guarantee that the Petitioners
will bargain jointly.
We find no merit in the Employer's objections. Board precedent
has fully established the propriety of two or more labor organizations
acting jointly as bargaining representative for a single group of
,employees.? We see no reason to depart from our past practice in
such cases. The names of the Petitioners will appear jointly on the
ballot and in the event that they are successful in the election herein-
, theydirected, will be certified jointly as the bargaining repre-
:ientative of the employees in the entire unit. The Employer may
then insist that the Petitioners bargain jointly for such employees
as a single unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'Sullivan Chevrolet Company, 93 NLRB No. 167 ; International Harvester Company,
'West Pullman Works, 89 NLRB 413.
GENERAL METALS CORPORATION , PACIFIC FITTINGS DIVISION and METAL
TRADES COUNCIL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ITS AFFILIATED
LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL UNIONS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
21-RC-1964. August 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 Irving Helbling,
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 United Steelworkers of America, Local
Union 2018, CIO, the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
95 NLRB No. 200.
GENERAL METALS CORPORATION 1491
3. The question concerning representation :.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a collective bargain-
ing contract executed by then on June, 1,1950; and a supplemental
agreement executed on December 1, 1950,. covering the employees
sought herein, is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends
that neither agreement constitutes a bar, asserting that the Decem-
ber'1950 agreement contains a union-security-provision that has not
been authorized by the employees in the Hollydale plant requested
herein.
Since 1945 the Employer and the Intervenor have executed a series,
of contracts embracing the -production and maintenance employees
in the Employer's Vernon, California, plant, the most recent of which
is the June 1950 agreement urged herein as a bar. This contract is
to remain in effect until June, 1,1952, and' contains a` union-security
clause which was executed after a majority of the eligible employees
in the Vernon plant had voted, pursuant. to Section 9 (e) (1)to
authorize the Intervenor to negotiate such a provision. -
On October 1, 1950, the Employer purchased the San Francisco,
California, plant facilities of the Pacific Fittings Company. Shortly
thereafter the Employer moved the machinery and equipment' from
that 'plant to a plant site located at Hollydale, California, in the
metropolitan Los Angeles area. About the, end of November 1950
the Employer commenced operations at the Hollydale plant. On De-
cember 1, 1950, when the Hollydale plant's complement consisted
of only 17' or 18 employees, 'theEmployer and the Intervenor exe-
cuted .the supplemental agreement mentioned above. Under the
terms of this agreement the Intervenor'was recognized by the'Em-
ployer as the bargaining representative of the_Hollydale employees
and all the provisions of the June 1950 contract, including the union-
security clause,2 were extended to that plant: On June 25, 1951, the
date of the hearing, the• Hollydale plant had approximately 110 em-
ployees, practically all of whom - were' hired after the plant began
production operations. At that time the Employer expected that
the plant would reach its full operating complement of about 250
employees sometime during the 60-day period after the he'aring.3
The petition herein was filed on May 21, 1951.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Hollydale plant is anew
-operation, staffed by new employees. As the June 1950 coy tract and
the December 1950 supplemental agreement were execute before the
actual inception of production operations at the Hollydale plant, and
before its personnel was recruited, we find, in accord with well-settled
'Case No. 21-UA-2942. -
2 No union-security authorization election has been held at the Hollydale plant.
3 The Employer also anticipated the delivery of new machinery during the same period
which would complete the installation of the plant equipment.
961974-52-vol. 95-95
1492 DECISIONS OF - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board policy, that neither agreement constitutes a bar to, this pro-
ceeding.4
A question' affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c).
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit: .
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of the production
And maintenance employees of the Hollydale plant, excluding office
and clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards,
and supervisors. Although it agrees with the composition of the pro-
posed unit, the Intervenor contends that it is too limited in- scope,'
asserting that the only appropriate unit should comprise the produc-
tion and maintenance employees in both the Vernon and Hollydale
plants. The Employer takes no position on this issue.
The Employer's Hollydale and Vernon plants are located about
7 miles apart. At its Vernon plant, the Employer is engaged in a
semifinishing operation, consisting of the forging, annealing, grind-
ing, and sand-blasting of pipe fittings. At the Hollydale plant, it
is engaged in, finishing operations consisting of the galvanizing,
machining, boring, threading, and tapping of the same fittings. Each
plant is under separate immediate supervision. Personnel matters
in each plant are handled on a separate plant basis, and separate pay-
rolls are likewise maintained.- At the time of the hearing, there was
practically no interchange of personnel between the Hollydale ,and
Vernon plants. As. shown above, bargaining between the Employer
and the Intervenor which began in 1945 and embraced the Vernon em-
ployees, has not covered the Hollydale employees, except for the
limited period following December 1, 1950.
Upon the entire record, and particularly the separate supervision
of the Hollydale plant, the separate personnel administration and
payrolls, the difference in plant functions, and the absence of any
appreciable. bargaining. history at that plant, we- believe that the
employees of the Hollydale plant have a sufficient community of
interest, apart from that of the employees in the Vernon, plant, to
warrant their establishment as a separate unit. On the other-hand,
the record also contains sufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of
the Hollydale employees in a single unit with the Vernon employees.
Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in
the election hereinafter directed..
4 Potlatch Forests, Inc., 94 NLRB 1444; Sinclair Refinery Company, 92 NLRB 643:
Sani-Aqua Shower Curtains , Inc., 88 NLRB 1289. In view of our findin g on the contract
bar issue, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the Petitioner ' s contention that the
contract contained an unauthorized union-security provision and was therefore ineffective
as a bar.
J. I. CASE COMPANY,. 1,493
We shall direct an, election in a voting group. composed of-the pro-
duction and maintenance . employees at the, Employer's Hollydale,
California, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, professional -
employees, watchmen, guards,-and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in this voting group vote for the.
Petitioner, they will be taken to have .indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate plant bargaining unit. If.a majority select the In
tervenor, they will be taken to, have indicated their desire to become
a part of the existing'unit composed of employees at the Vernon plant..
[Text of Direction of Election omitted. from publication in this
volume.]
J. I. CASE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION , UNITED AIITOMOBIL,
AIRCRAFT , AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO. 'Cabe No. 2O--CA-587. Augv t 31,1951
Decision and Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on May 10,1951,-by International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of Aiiler=
ica, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel
and the Board, by 'the Acting Regional Director of the Twentieth
Region (San Francisco, California),-issued a complaint dated May
23, 1951, against J. I. Case Company, herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and charge were duly served upon the Re=
spondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges
in substance that the Respondent (1) on and since May 8, 1951, has
continuously refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of its employees in an appropriate unit, although the
Union had been certified by the Board as the representative of the
employees in such unit; and (2) by such refusal has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed by the Act. On June 2, 1951, the Respondent filed its answer
to the complaint, in which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations
of the complaint and that it had continuously failed and refused to
'95 NLRB No. 20.7.