Lewis Engineering & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1353 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

LEWIS ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1353
A question remains, however, as to the placement of certain clericals
sought by the Petitioner, namely the clerk in each of the following
departments : service, shipping and receiving, and catalogue. The
service clerk in the service department works in the same department
and in the same area with three service personnel. She-takes phone
requests for service on appliances, prepares work orders and reports,
orders parts, handles cash, and makes over-the-counter sales of parts.
The pro-register clerk works in the shipping and receiving department
with a shipping and receiving clerk, a warehouseman, and two
markers. She counts and keeps records of all incoming merchandise,
prepares all documents for goods shipped out, prepares trip sheets,
and makes out claims for damages to merchandise in transit. The
bookkeeper in the catalogue department works along with the head
of the department whose primary function is selling. The bookkeeper
keeps records of mail order sales and spends one-half of her time sell-
ing. We are of the opinion that the duties of the service clerk, pro-
register clerk, and bookkeeper in the catalogue department are more
closely related to those of the other employees in their departments
who are excluded from the unit and we shall therefore exclude those
categories from the unit."'
We find that all office clerical employees 12 at the Employer's Poca-
tello, Idaho, store, excluding sales employees, service clerk, pro-
register clerk, bookkeeper in the catalogue department, all other em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
n Maas Brothers , Inc., supra.
12 This includes the "35" store clerk and all employees in the cashier , time payment,
unit control , and invoice records departments.
LEWIS ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 8-RC-17'15. October 3,195°
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 Charles A. Fleming, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
100 NLRB No. 203.
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and
Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, Local 705, UE, contends that its last contract with the
Employer is a bar to this proceeding 1 The Employer notified the
hearing officer that it did not desire to participate in the hearing.2
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.
The basic contract between the Employer and the UE and Local 705
was executed September 6, 1947, for a 2-year term with the provision
that it shall thereafter continue for a similar period , unless notice of
termination in writing is given by either party at least 30 days before
the next annual expiration date. On August 10, 1948, the parties exe-
cuted supplement 1 to the basic contract and provided that this supple-
ment was to be in effect for a period not less than 1 year. On June 5,
1950, the parties executed supplement 2, effective until September 4,
1951. On June 29,1951, there was added supplement 3 which provides
in paragraph 6 as follows : "This contract, which extends the present
contract to September 6, 1952, may be reopened by either party for
wage adjustments as of June 1, 1952 on 60 days written notice."
The Petitioner and the IUE contend that the contract expired by its
own terms September 6, 1952, and furthermore that a schism in the
membership of the local removes the contract as a bar to an immedi-
ate election.3 The UE contends (1) that as no notice to terminate the
contract was given by either party prior to July 8, 1952, the contract
was automatically renewed until September 6,1953; (2) that although
the petition was filed on June 26, 1952, the request to bargain was not
made,until July 11, 1952, after the contract had been renewed, and
therefore the petition should be dismissed.
We find no merit in these contentions. The last supplement which
clearly extends the contract to a definite expiration date of September
I The International Union of Electrical Workers, Local 750, CIO ( IUE), was 'also
permitted to intervene.
8 The Employer did send a representative to the hearing to give the necessary commerce
data and to he available as a witness, if necessary.
8 The parties agreed to incorporate all the testimony in Case No 8-RC -1666 relative
to the schism and disaffiliation issue. As we find that the contract in question is not a
bar, there is no need to consider the merits of the schism issue.
BEAR BRAND HOSITERY COMPANY 1355
6,1952, can be interpreted as a modification in the termination clause of
the basic contract to remove the automatic renewal provision therein.
Under the circumstances, the contract is not a bar to a petition filed
within a reasonable time before the expiration date.,' Moreover, even
if we should not regard the last supplement as eliminating the auto-
matic renewal provision, it appears that the petition was filed within
a reasonable time prior to the automatic renewal date, and therefore, in
accordance with established Board decisions, such contract does not
constitute a bar .5
4. The appropriate unit:
Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance employees
with the usual exclusions.6 Aside from the part-time janitor whom
the Petitioner would exclude and the Intervenors include, there was
virtually no disagreement as to the composition of the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Alliance, Ohio, plant, including shipping and receiving em-
ployees and the part-time janitor,? but excluding clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Marine Optical Manufacturing Company , 92 NLRB 571.
Reynolds Metal Company, 85 NLRB 110 . The further contention of the UE that the
contract is a bar on the ground that despite the earlier filing of the petition , no formal
request to bargain was made until after the automatic renewal date , is equally without
merit . The Board has held that the filing of a petition is sufficient to raise a question
concerning representation without a formal request for recognition or for collective bar-
gaining. Advance Pattern Co., 80 NLRB 29. York Bank Instrument Co., 87 NLRB 1576.
6 The petition was amended at the hearing to include all production and maintenance
employees and shipping and receiving employees but excluding clerical employees , inspec-
tor's with supervisory authority, guards, professional employees , and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
7 The Petitioner sought to exclude the part -time janitor on the ground that she had been
excluded from the last contract. As it appears that this employee is a regular part-time
employee she is included in the unit , in accordance with established precedents of the
Board.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO . Cases Nos. 9-CA-898 and 9-RC-1085. October 6,
1952
Decision , Direction , and Order
Upon February 19,1952, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
100 NLRB No. 231.