Jewett & Sherman Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 806 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JEWETT & SHERMAN Co., PETITIONER and WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES LOCAL
UNION No. 570, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL.
Case No. 5-ISM-268. November 8,1954
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 Louis Aronin, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. On June 26, 1952, following a consent election in Case No. 5-RC-
1097, the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of the production and maintenance employees in the unit de-
scribed by the Employer in its petition herein. The most recent agree-
ment of the parties was executed on October 26, 1953, effective for a
period of 1 year from October 1, 1953, and from year to year thereafter
unless modified or terminated by either party on 60 days' notice to the
other. On July 22, 1954, the Union notified the Employer that it de-
sired to negotiate changes in their agreement. On July 29, 1954, the
Employer notified the Union that it would terminate the agreement
on its expiration and, as it doubted that the Union represented a
majority of its employees, the Employer stated that it would seek to
have the Board determine the employees' choice as to a bargaining
representative. On August 3, 1954, the Employer filed its representa-
tion petition.
At the hearing, the Union moved to dismiss the Employer's petition,
contending that no question of representation existed on the grounds
that : (1) The Employer did not in good faith challenge the Union's
majority status, and, therefore, the Board should, under the circum-
stances, order the Employer to bargain with the Union without the
necessity of conducting a representation election; and (2) that the
Employer's unfair labor practices (with respect to which the Union
had filed charges against the Employer) made a free election at the
present time impossible.' These contentions are without merit.
'The record shows that on September 2, 1954, the Union filed unfair labor practice
charges against the Employer alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) of the
Act. After an investigation of such charges by the Regional Director , the Employer on
September 9, 1954, executed a settlement agreement, agreeing to post the customary
( 8) (a) (1) notice This settlement agreement was approved by the Regional Director.
We are administratively advised that on September 9, 1954 , following the execution of
110 NLRB No. 128.
THE VENDO COMPANY 807
The Board has held that a union's request for a new contract was
the equivalent of a new demand for recognition, which, when denied
by the employer, raises a question concerning representation which the
employer is entitled to have resolved by an election. The good faith
of the employer in refusing to grant continued recognition, or the
legality of its refusal under Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, the Board
has stated, are not properly before it in a representation proceeding.'
Under the circumstances, we find that 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. Accordingly, we deny the Union's motion to dismiss the peti-
tion herein.
4. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, food processing plant, excluding
office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees,,
truckdrivers, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
the settlement agreement and the posting of the notice , the Regional Director dismissed
the unfair labor practice charges. The Union appealed this dismissal to the General
Counsel, and apparently such appeal is now pending . In these circumstances , we are of
the opinion that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act to direct an election herein,
even though an appeal from the dismissal of the unfair labor practice charges is pend-
ing before the General Counsel. (See Mc Quay, Incorporated, 107 NLRB 787.) However,
we shall make the Direction of Election herein contingent on the Employer 's compliance
with the settlement agreement ; accordingly, we hereby direct the Regional Director to
conduct such election at a time when he has determined that compliance by the Employer
has been effected and that no intervening unfair labor practices make a free election im-
possible . ( See Ingo Lumber Company, 92 NLRB 1267 , 1268, footnote 2; Personal Prod-
uots Corporation, 108 NLRB 1129.)
2 Philadelphia Electric Company, 95 NLRB 71 ; Andrews Industries, Inc., 105 NLRB 946.
3 The unit found appropriate conforms to the unit certified by the Board in 1952. and -
described in the parties ' most recent agreement.
THE VENDO COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS , DISTRICT LODGE No . 71, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 17-RC-
1832. November 8,1954
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 William J. Cassidy, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing -are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
110 NLRB No. 126.