Kirsten Leather Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1469 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

KIRSTEIN LEATHER CO., INC. 1469
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed
and we will make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them.
RONALD UTZ
NEWBERRY CARROLL
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named union, or any other labor organization.
We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in
or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
SUNSET MINERALS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ------------------ By ---------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
1{IRSTEIN LEATHER Co., INC. and LOCAL 21, INTERNATIONAL Ftm &
LEATHER WORB ERS' UNioN OF U. S. AND CANADA, PETITIONER. Case
No. 1-RC-2891. October 10, 1952
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 George A. Sweeney, 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 certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A 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?
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a group of maintenance employ-
ees.' It currently represents the Employer's production employees
1 We find no merit In the Employer ' s contention that the exclusion of the maintenance
employees from the Petitioner 's current contract with the Employer is sufficient reason to
bar this petition . The Board has consistently held that an exclusionary clause in a collec-
tive bargaining agreement is not tantamount to an agreement not to seek recognition for
the excluded employees and does not preclude a later certification of the contracting union
as representative of the excluded employees . Baltimore Transit Company, 92 NLRB 688;
Martin Parry Corporation, 95 NLRB 1506 , 1507; Bulldog Electric Products Company,
96 NLRB 642 ; Wilson f Co., Inc., 97 NLRB 1388.
2 The maintenance employees are also referred to in the record as mechanics.
100 NLRB No. 235.
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,
under a contract excluding maintenance employees. At the hearing
the parties stipulated that the maintenance employees constitute an
appropriate unit. While the Board has established separate units for
maintenance employees where no union has sought to represent them
on a broader basis,8 it has held consistently that absent cogent reasons
to the contrary, an over-all production and maintenance unit is more
appropriate than separate units of these employees .4 In the instant
case there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Petitioner would
seriously oppose the representation of the maintenance employees in
the same unit with the production employees. Accordingly, we find
that the appropriate unit in this case is a single unit of production
and maintenance employees.
As no question of representation exists at the present time in the
existing production unit, we shall direct an election among all mainte-
nance employees in the employ of the Kirstein Leather Co., Inc.,
at Peabody, Massachusetts, but excluding all other employees, all
guards, professional employees, office and clerical employees, and all
supervisors 5 as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees
voting in the election cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the produc-
tion unit currently represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional
Director shall issue a certificate of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume. ]
8 Tyre Brothers Glass ct Paint Co., 85 NLRB 910, 911.
4 Benner Tea Company, 88 NLRB 1409, 1411 ; Granite Textile Mills, Inc., 76 NLRB 613.
6 The record does -not contain evidence sufficient to enable us to determine whether Mark
Nalesnik , a maintenance leadman , is a supervisor. We shall make no finding at this time
but shall permit him to vote subject to challenge in the election herein directed. If his
ballot is determinative of the results of the election , we shall direct that further investiga-
tion be conducted to determine his status as a supervisor . Philadelphia Electric Company,
95 NLRB 71, 73.
GLENSIDE LUMBER AND COAL Co. and LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PHILADELPHIA & VICINITY, LOCAL 57, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNA-
TIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING & COMMON LABORERS UNION OF
AMERICA, AFL and LOCAL 384, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 4-RC-160.9 and 4-RC-1653. Octo-
ber 10, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing in Case No. 4-RC-1609 was held before Julius
100 NLRB No. 240.