John McCormack Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 289 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

JOHN MCCORMACK CO. 289
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 carpenters and set erectors at the Employer's Los Angeles motion
picture studio, excluding all other employees, professional employees,
guards, and Supervisors.'
5. The Petitioner requests that the Board permit all employees in
the appropriate unit who have worked for the Employer at any time
during the 120-day period immediately preceding the date of this
direction of election to vote in the election. The Employer takes no
position. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees of
the United States and Canada, AFL, the Intervenor herein, urges a
90-day eligibility period. The Employer's payroll records disclose
that out of 15 employees in the categories herein involved who were
employed during the period from November 1950 through March 1951,
only 3 employees worked at some time each month during this 5-month
period. A majority of the employees, however, have worked for the
Employer at some time during the last 4 months. In view of the
relatively brief periods of employment afforded the employees in-
volved herein, and their frequent interchange among other employees
in the area, we shall depart from our usual eligibility rule. We shall
direct that a 120-day eligibility period immediately preceding the date
of this direction of election be used to determine which employees in
the appropriate unit are eligible to vote in the election. Thus, em-
ployees who would otherwise be eligible to vote will not be dis-
franchised if, immediately prior to the election, they happen to be
employed by another employer in the area .2
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
1 The parties are in agreement with respect to the composition of the unit found appro-
priate in an earlier proceeding . Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., et at.,
88 NLRB 521.
1 Norcal Packing Company, et al., 76 NLRB 254 ; The Independent Motion Picture
Producers Association , 88 NLRB 1285; Jerry Fairbanks, Inc., 93 NLRB 898.
T. B. MCCORMACK , AN INDIVIDUAL , D/B/A JOHN MCCORMACK CO., AND
C. N. HILL and UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS LOCAL
INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78 , CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 20-RC-
1922. November 13, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held on September 23,1952,
before M. C. Dempster, a hearing officer of the National Labor Rela-
101 NLRB No. 64.
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions Board. As provided in Section 102.55 of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 6, as amended, the Peti-
tioner was duly served with notice of said hearing but did not appear.
We 1 view the failure of the Petitioner to appear at said hearing as
a disclaimer of interest in the representation of the employees of the
Employer. Therefore, we find that no question of representation
exists concerning the representation of the employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives of employees of the Employer filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
'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
[ Members Houston, Murdock , and Styles].
2 See Townsend Sash, Door ci Lumber Co., 96 NLRB 950; Denver Smoked Fish Co,,
78 NLRB 631; Hartsville Manufacturing Company, 79 NLRB 206 ; Merchant Fire and
Dispatch, 83 NLRB 788; Busaard Taxi and Bus Service, 81 NLRB 1181.
TowN AND COUNTRY SHOES, INC . and BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS' UNION,
AFL, PETITIONER. Case No . 17-RC-1305. November 13, 1959
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Martin Sacks, 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, Murdock, 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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all cutting department em-
ployees of the Employer at its downtown plant in Sedalia, Missouri,
101 NLRB No. 65.