Elizabethtown Water Co. Consolidated

In the Matter Of ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY CONSOLIDATED, EMPLOYER and UTILITY WORKERS UNION of AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER In the Matter of UNION CONSTRUCTION AND HOLDING CORP., EMPLOYER and UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Cases Nos. 2-RC-1041 and 3-RC-1012, respectively.Decided Juqle 29, 1949 DECISION% AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Herbert C. Kane, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1'. • The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and United Public Workers of America, Local 423; C. I. 0.,1 herein called the Intervenor, are'l'abor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employers. 3. The question concerning representation : Union Construction and Holding Corp. is a' wholly' owned 'subsid- iary of Elizabethtown Water Company Consolidated. Labor rela- tions for both Employers are handled by the same persons. The Employers have bargained collectively with the Intervenor for several The, International as well as Local '423- sought to intervene . I The hearing officer permitted only Local 423 to intervene as it, and not the International , was a party to the contracts with the Employers. The International argues in its brief that it assumed control of the contracts after. the attempted disaffiliation , discussed below, and that it should therefore have been permitted to'intervene. We find, in ariy event, that the 'position of the International was adequately presented by the 'Intervenor, both of whom were represented by the same attorney. 84 N. L. R. B., No. 97. 845 853396-50-vol. 84-57 846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD years. Their contracts have been negotiated jointly but executed separately, and they are not always identical. Under date of Febru- ary 1, 1948, the Employers and the Intervenor entered into collective bargaining contracts, which provided for termination on February 1, 1950. At a• regularly called meeting of the Intervenor on January 6, 1949, a resolution was adopted to disaffiliate from United Public Workers of America, C. I. 0., and to apply for a charter from Utility "Workers of America, C. I. O. The 32 members present at the meet= ing voted unariiniously for the resolution. On February 17, 1949, the Petitioner issued a charter to Local 423 at the Employers' plants. All officers of the Intervenor, and all other employees of the Em- ployers who were members of the Intervenor, subsequently became members of the Petitioner. On January 7, 1949, United Public Work- ers of America, C. I. 0., suspended its Local 423 and appointed an administrator of its affairs. There is, no evidence that, subsequent to this date, the Intervenor held meetings` or in any way actively repre- sented the employees of the Employers. The Intervenor, however, contends that its contracts with the Employers are a bar to the instant petitions, and that the disaffiliation was ineffective because it did not conform with the constitutional requirements of United Public Work- ers of America, C.,I. 0. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we find that there exists a doubt as to the identity of the labor organization which the employees of the Employers desire to represent them, and that it can best be re- solved by an election. As we have previously held, under similar cir- cumstances, an existing contract does not constitute a bar to a present determination of representatives.2 We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employers, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties,3 we firid-that-the following employees of the Employers respectively constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : (a) All employees of Elizabethtown Water Company Consolidated, at its plants in Elizabeth, Springfield, Hummocks (Union), and Dun- 2 Matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Columbia Chemical Division, 80 N. L. R B 1331 ; Matter of Hackensack Water Company, 84 N. L. R. B. 842., 'The units to which the parties agreed are identical with the units in the contracts between the Employers and the Intervenor. ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY CONSOLIDATED 847 ellen, New Jersey, excluding watchmen,4 office employees, and super- visors; (b) All employees of Union Construction and Holding Corp., at its plants in Bridgewater Township, New Jersey, excluding chemists, office employees, and supervisors. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 5 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employers, separate elec- tions by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of Na- tional Labor- Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the units found appropriate in para- graph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but exclud- ing,those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the dates of the elections, and also excluding employees on strike who are not en- titled -to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Utility Workers Union of America, C. I. O. , 4 The contract between this Employer and the Intervenor includes watchmen in the unit. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary , we assume that these watchmen perform the normal duties of such employees . We shall therefore exclude them from the unit Matter of Roanoke Mills Company , 76 N L. R. B. 195. 5 Having failed to achieve compliance, or to initiate steps for compliance , with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the amended Act, the Intervenor will not be accorded a place on the ballots.