Jensen Manufacturing Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 22, 1957117 N.L.R.B. 752 (N.L.R.B. 1957) Copy Citation 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for abandonment or evasion of the petition and election procedure. We shall, therefore, dismiss the Petitioner's motion to clarify the certification.' [The Board dismissed the motion.] 5 Weatherhead Company of Antwerp, 106 NLRB 1266, 1267. Jensen Manufacturing Company and District No. 8, Interna- tional Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Local 1114, United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America and International Union of Electrical Radio & Ma- chine Workers of America , AFL-CIO and Local 1031, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-RC-4863. March 2 ,1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act, a hearing was held before Raymond A. Jacobsen, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean]. 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 labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' I The petition herein was filed on February 1.0, 1956. A hearing began on April 26, 1956, at which time UE intervened on the basis of a bargaining contract , and IUE and IBEW intervened on showings of interest. The hearing was recessed until May 3, 1956, and at the close of this season was recessed a second time. Thereafter, while the hearing was in recess the following events transpired: (1) UE filed charges and amended charges in Case No. 13-CA-2245, alleging, inter alia , that, in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, the Employer had recognized IBEW on May 14, 1956 , as the exclusive representa- tive of its employees, and had checked off dues in favor of IBEW ; ( 2) on October 5, 1956, IUE filed a charge in Case No. 13-CA-2327 alleging that , in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), the Employer was requiring its employees to join IBEW ; ( 3) on October 11, 1956, UE filed a charge in Case No. 13-CA-2332 alleging that the Employer had re- strained and coerced its employees by entering into a bargaining contract with IBEW on October 1, 1956, and by thereafter requiring its employees to join IBEW, all during the pendency of the petition in this case , and (4 ) the Regional Director refused to issue com- plaints on any of these charges, on the sole ground , in each instance , that "there is insufficient evidence of violations." When the hearing herein resumed on October 23, 1956, the Employer introduced evi- dence to the effect that while the hearing was in recess the Employer had recognized the 117 NLRB No. 115. ,CITY TIRE COMPANY 753 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's opera- tion at 6601 South Laramie Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, including leaders, receiving and shipping room employees, and janitors, but excluding all office and factory clericals, sales and engineering em- ployees, guards, foremen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] IBEW and had signed a contract with that union In addition , the Petitioner sought to withdraw its petition herein , and joined with the Employer and the IBEW in a motion to dismiss on the ground that no question concerning representation presently exists. These paities contend in support of the motion that the actions of the Regional Director in dismissing the various above-described charges against the Employer, particularly the charges in 13-CA-2245, are tantamount , under the Mid-West Psping rule, 63 NLRB 1060, to findings by the General Counsel, acting through his agent , the Regional Director, that no real question concerning representation existed when the Employer recognized the IBEW ; and that , accordingly , under the Times Squat e doctrine , 79 NLRB 361, the Board is foreclosed from finding that a question concerning representation now exists The latter contention , resting as it does on a false premise , is without merit. The Regional Director did not find that no question concerning representation existed; rather, in dismissing the charges , he found only " insufficient evidence of violations " Any number of possible underlying reasons, about which we will not here speculate, may have impelled the latter conclusion . Accordingly, without deciding whether the Times Square doctrine would necessarily have foreclosed the issue had the Regional Director actually made a finding that no question concerning representation in fact existed, we deny the motions . The Petitioner may, if it wishes , have its name removed from the ballot. See Frank Foundries Corporation, 92 NLRB 1754, footnote 1. Joe Gold and Newell Smith d/b/a City Tire Company and District 64, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 1-RC-4715. March 25, 1957 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed on November 1, 1956, and approved by the Regional Director on November 2, 1956, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 8, 1956, under the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director of the First Region of the National Labor Relations Board among the employees in the unit herein found appropriate. Following the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that, of the approximately 15 eligible votes, 14 cast ballots, of which 6 were for the Petitioner, 1 was against the Petitioner, and 7 ballots were challenged. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Acting Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on December 7, 1956, issued and served upon the parties his report on 117 NLRB No. 117. 423784-57-vol. 117-49 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation