Lehighton Furniture Corp.

i 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to come within the rule of the Hollow Tree case. As the nature of a contractor's business is generally sporadic, such a test would tend to confuse application of the rules for asserting jurisdiction, The Respondents contend that the Board should dismiss the com- plaint because the alleged unfair labor practices occurred in connec- tion with a purely local construction job, which, by itself, has no effect on interstate commerce. We find no merit to this contention, as we believe that in the construction industry, as in others,,' the Board zhould determine jurisdiction based on the over-all operations of the ,employer' We accordingly find that Respondent Speer is engaged it) com- merce within the meaning of the Act, and that, because Respondent's .services to an interstate enterprise exceed the amount specified in the Hollow Tree decision, it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in order to resolve the substantive issues raised by the complaints. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order of the Trial Examiner dismiss- ing the complaints be, and it hereby is, reversed ; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled Cases Nos. 21-CA-844 and 21-CB-276, be, and they hereby are, remanded to the Trial Ex- aminer for appropriate action, including preparation and issuance of an Intermediate Report, setting forth his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations with respect to the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaints. 3 Von's Grocery Company, 91 NLRB 504, Federal Stores Division of Spiegel, Inc, 91 NLRB 647 4 West Virginia Electric Corporation, 90 NLRB 526 (to which Chairman Herzog and Member Reynolds separately dissented) decided prior to the Hollow Tice case, is over- ruled insofar as it is inconsistent with this decision. LEHIGHTON FURNITURE CORPORATION 1 and UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Ci ase No. 4-RC-1019. May 4, 1951 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 Harold Kowal, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 94 NLRB No 58. LEHIGHTON FURNITURE CORPORATION 319 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, Reynolds, 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.2 3. On December 9, 1950, the Petitioner requested recognition of the Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- ployees. The Employer and the Intervenor assert that the present contract is a bar to the instant proceeding. The Employer's president was formerly connected with a Paterson, New Jersey, firm, which is not a party to this proceeding. In No- vember 1949, the Employer was formed. It purchased the plant in Lehighton, Pennsylvania, involved in this case, for the purpose of manufacturing furniture. In December 1949, the Employer brought 12 men from the Paterson plant to Lehighton, to act as lead men, to train additional help, and to make samples. However, all of these 12 employees had left the Employer by the end of January 1950. On January 1, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract recognizing the Intervenor as exclusive bargaining represent- ative of the Employer's employees. It is this contract, which is effective until December 31, 1951, that is urged in bar. The record establishes that in mid-December 1949, when the con- tract in question was under negotiation, the Employer had only about 3 employees. At the time the contract was executed on January 1, 1950, there were 12 employees. Actual production at the plant did not begin until late in January or early February 1950, at which time the Employer began employing local people. It presently employs about 40 people. It is thus clear that the agreement urged in bar was executed prior to the actual commencement of production operations at the plant and at a time when the Employer had not yet recruited a representa- tive complement of employees. In these circumstances we find, in accordance with well-established Board principles, that the contract does not constitute a bar to the present proceeding.3 We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within 2 Local 95 , Retail , Wholesale and Department Store Union, CIO, herein called the Inter- venor , was permitted to inteivene because of the existence of a contract with the Employer covering the proposed bargaining unit 3 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 87 NLRB 46 $ General Electric Company (Med- ford Plant ), 85 NLRB 150 , The Goodyea, Tire and Rubber Company (,Special Products "C"), 80 NLRB 1347 , Daaey Corporation , 77 NLRB 408 , Champion Motors Company, 72 NLRB 436 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find that all production and maintenance employees, exclud- ing office clericals, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute a unit appropriate 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.] JARKA CORPORATION OF PHILADELPHIA and WILLIAM J. WALKER LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION and WILLIAM J. WALKER LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSLHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION and WIL- LIAM D. RICIIARDSON. Cases Nos. 4-CA-251, 4-CB-411, and 4-CB- 45. May 7, 1951 Decision and Order On September 25, 1950, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Union and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs. As the International Longshoremen's Association (AFL) (hereinafter called the International) is a direct party to collective bargaining agreements in the Philadelphia area, it was permitted to file a brief in opposition to the Intermediate Re- port. The Respondent Company filed no exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report. The request for oral argument of the Respondent Union and the International is hereby denied, as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board 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 Inter- 'Although the complaints enlarged upon the charges original'y filed, we find no merit in the Unions' contentions that the enlargement was barred by the 6-month limitation contained in section 10 (b). The additional unfair labor practices were committed no longer than 6 months before the filing and service of the original charges, and were there- fore properly included. Nor is it material that the enlargement of the complaint was 004 NLRB No. 54.