Avco Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 421 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

AVCO 'MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 421
after directed : (1) All maintenance department employees; (2) all
garage' employees. If a majority in both voting groups vote for the
Petitioner, they will betaken to have indicated a preference for one
over-all maintenance department unit, and the Board, under the cir-
,cumstances, finds slich a unit 't6 be appropriate for the' purposes of
,collective bargaining. In the event the Petitioner or the Intervenor
establishes a majority in voting group (1) alone, the Board finds the
existing maintenance department unit to be separately appropriate.9
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
Volume.]
9 The parties are agreed that the - attendance of one employee , classified as an oven
greaser, is so irregular as-.to i ake him Ineligibleto vote in an election . We find in
accordance with the stipulation of the parties that the oven -greaser is not eligible to vote
In the election.
'BRIDGEPORT-LYCOMING DIVISION , Avco MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, PE-
TITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-4663. November 19, 195
Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election
On September 18, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Direction
of Elections herein, establishing two voting groups at the Employer's
Stratford, Connecticut, plant : Group (a) comprising all technical
and office clerical employees, and group (b) comprising all profes-
sional employees.' The Petitioner desires to have the Board amend
this Decision and Direction by including in group (a) the plant cleri-
. cal employees. The Employer opposes their inclusion.
Where, as here, there is disagreement between the parties as to the
'placement of plant clericals, it is the established practice of the Board
to exclude them from units of office clerical employees.2 However,
they may appropriately ;become: part of the Petitioner's existing pro-
duction and maintenance unit if they and the Petitioner so desire.
. Accordingly, we will direct a self-determination election in an addi-
tional voting group, which we will designate group (c), comprising
all plant clerical employees at the Employer's Stratford, Connecticut,
plant, excluding confidential employees, managerial employees,
guards, and supervisors. If a majority of the employees in this vot-
ing group. select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
100 NLRB No. 185.
2 Chrysler Corporation (Dodge Main Plant), 76 NLRB 55; Wilson & Company, 97
NLRB 1388.
101 NLRB No. 115. - -
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their desire to be included in the production and maintenance unit
currently represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director
shall issue a certification of results .of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election 8 omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election.
' We hereby direct the Regional Director not to proceed with the election herein directed.
until he shall have first determined that the Petitioner has a sufficient showing of interest
in this group . Great Atlantic it Pacific Tea Company, 99 NLRB 1500.
BRYANT FINISHING CO., INC. and UNITED TExTU.E WoRuERs or
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
THE PAWTUXET VALLEY DYEING CO., INC. and UNITED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
THIES DYEING MILLS, INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
GEORGE E. MousLEY COMPANY, INC., AND MILLBURN MILLS, INC. and
UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 1-RC-2835,1-RC4836,1-RC-f837, and 1-RC-284O. Novem-
ber 19,1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Sidney A. Co-
ven, 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 these cases to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers?
3. The Intervenor contends that its collective bargaining contracts
with the Employers should bar the instant petitions. The Petitioner
1 These cases were consolidated by order of the Regional Director on July 2, 1952.
f Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, herein termed the Intervenor , was granted
intervention at the hearing.
101 NLRB No. 95.