Micro Metalizing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 293 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

MICRO METALIZING COMPANY, INC., ETC. 293
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employers within Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .23
4. The following employees of the joint employers constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section
9 (b) of the Act : all seamen employed upon the vessels owned or
managed by Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S.A., and jointly oper-
ated by the Employers, excluding guards, masters, other licensed
officers , and all other supervisors.14.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERs dissenting :
For the reason stated in my dissenting opinions in West India
Fruit and Steamship Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 343, and Hamilton
Bros., Inc., 133 NLRB 868, I would dismiss the petition herein.
time of the close of the hearing . As we find that "Sindimar" is a labor organization, the
motion to intervene is hereby granted . See Hamilton Bros., Inc, 133 NLRB 868.
Sociedad Naccional de Marineros de Hondoras was listed in the petition as the bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the alleged appropriate unit and the record shows
that , at the time of the hearing , a contract between Socledad Naccional and Empress
covering the employees was then in effect. Copies of the petition , of the notice of hear-
ing, and other formal papers were not served on Socledad Naccional . However, on
dune 7, 1961, the Board issued a notice, served on the parties and Sociedad Naccional, in
which, inter alia, it accorded that organization a right to intervene and state its position
on the issues by filing within 25 days a statement of intervention and a brief. As Sociedad
Naccional did not reply to the notice, we conclude it is not interested in being a party to
this proceeding , and we therefore do not consider it to be one.
28 We find contrary to the contention of Empresa that its contract with Socledad
Nacclonal in effect at the time the petition was filed but expiring in April 1961 is not a
bar to this 'proceeding , assuming it would otherwise be so effective , because the decision
herein is issuing after the expiration date of that contract . See St . Louis Independent
Packing Company, 122 NLRB 887, 889.
24 The unit appears substantially as requested by the Petitioner . Empresa and UFCO
did not contend the unit is inappropriate in either scope or composition , but object to
the unit on the grounds considered above and found without merit, i e, that UFCO Is not
an employer of the employees and that the Board is without jurisdiction in this case.
Micro Metalizing Company, Inc., and White Rod Metalizing
Corporation and Local 819, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-11263.
November 15, 1961
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 Haywood E. Banks, hearing
officer.' The hearing officer's- rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
'The parties' names appear as amended at the hearing.
2 We grant the Petitioner 's unopposed motion to amend its petition as described below
in this Decision.
134 NLRB No. 30.
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In the petition the Petitioner requested a unit of the production
and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, at the Employer's
New York City, New York, metal plating plant, which unit is cur-
rently represented by the Intervenor.'
At the hearing, the Petitioner requested elections in separate units
of the Employer's truckdrivers and the production and maintenance
employees, excluding truckdrivers. Although the Petitioner described
its second unit request as an amendment of its petition, we construe
the request as an alternative unit position, in view of the Petitioner's
declared intent to represent all of the Employer's employees in one
unit, if successful in the elections in both units described in the second
unit request.
In these circumstances, we find that all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's New York City, New York, metal plating
plant, including truckdrivers and seasonal employees, but excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, temporary employees,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, is the only
appropriate unit.
The Employer would include employees hired to work during
seasonal peak periods. The Petitioner would exclude them as tempo-
rary employees. The Employer's normal work force numbers 20 em-
ployees, although at times only about 14 employees are retained. Its
peak season is in November and December when the work force usually
increases to approximately 54 employees, although in former years,
when the Employer's operations were extensive, has increased to
as many as 200 employees. The slack season is in June. Employees
hired for the seasonal period are told that the work is seasonal, but
that they may acquire regular status if business warrants. They
work an average of 8 to 10 weeks. Except for an initial probationary
period of 30 days, all employees have substantially the same benefits
and conditions of employment. When laid off, employees are told that
they will be called back if the work picks up. In rehiring for work
s Local 121 , Amalgamated Watch Clock and Time Instrument Workers Union , Inter-
national Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
TRI-TRONICS LABORATORIES, INC. 295
during the peak, the Employer gives preference to the most recently
laid-off employees. Approximately 75 to 90 percent to those laid off
return the following year for work during the peak period.
We find that employees hired for seasonal peak periods are seasonal,
rather than temporary, employees, as the Petitioner contends, and
shall include them in the unit.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 Tropicana Products , Inc., 122 NLRB 12.
Tri-Tronics Laboratories , Inc. and Lodge 1591 , International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO . Case No. 16-CA-1447.
November 16, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 18, 1961, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Tri-Tronics Lab-
oratories, Inc., Euless, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
'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 McCulloch and
Members Rodgers and Leedom].
awe rely particularly on the following facts, among others: (1) Vice President Great-
house's remark of September 27, in reference to Tribble, "Good riddance" ; (2) Foreman
Hatchcock's warning to Tribble to "be very careful . . . and by all means stay busy" be-
cause "the company was on" him "about" her; and (3) Respondent's failure, in the face
of all the evidence indicating its discriminatory motivation, to offer a credible explana-
tion for again discharging her. Accordingly, we agree with the Trial Examiner's con-
clusion that the second discharge was likewise due to Tribble's union activity and to her
disregard of warnings to abandon such activity.
134 NLRB No. 31.