Tech-Masters Products Co.

718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and desired a new one, one of the members moved that they withdraw from Local 530. The chairman refused to entertain the motion. Nevertheless, following extended argument, employees present spon- taneously voted to withdraw from the local and walked out of the meeting. We do not believe that this evidence of dissatisfaction with the fruits of the Intervenor's collective bargaining efforts warrants a finding that the Union has ceased to function as a labor organization in the Employer's plant. Accordingly, as the current contract between the Employer and the Intervenor will not expire until April 3, 1952, we find that it is a bar to a present determination of representatives, and we will there- fore dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and hereby is, dismissed. Louis A. LAZOFF, D/B/A TECH-MASTERS PRODUCTS COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3407. May 18, 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 I. L. Broadwin, hearing offi- cer. 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, 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. 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 parties agree, and we find, that the following employees con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 1Local 70, Industrial Production & Novelty Workers Union , IJWU, AFL, was permitted to intervene at the hearing. 94 NLRB No. 110. BROPHY ENGRAVING COMPANY 719r, All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's New York City plant, excluding office and clerical employees , technical and professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. On February 26, 1951, Local 430 of the Petitioner made a demand for recognition and the Petitioner simultaneously filed the instant petition. On February 28, 1951, the. Intervenor requested recognition.. The Employer asserts that he has declined to recognize either union because of these conflicting claims. On March 21, 1951, 16 employees struck without explanation , and most, if not all , of them were replaced during the strike, which appears to have ended April 9, 1951. The Petitioner contends that the strike was caused by the Employer's al- leged unfair labor practice in refusing to recognize the Petitioner,. and that the strikers are therefore entitled to reinstatement and should be deemed eligible to vote in the election herein directed . However, as no charges have been filed, or complaint issued, alleging that the strikers were unfair labor practice strikers , we are required to find that they are economic strikers, and that to the extent that they have been permanently replaced, they are ineligible to vote.' As the extent to which the strikers have been permanently replaced was not fully litigated at the hearing, we permit the strikers as well as their replace- ments to vote, subject to the challenge.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume. ] 2 Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361. 3 The Pipe Machinery Company, 76 NLRB 247. BROPHY ENGRAVING COMPANY and DETROIT PHOTO-ENGRAVERS' UNION No. 12, INTERNATIONAL PHOTO-ENGRAVERS ' UNION OF NORTH AMER- ICA, A. F. L. Case No. 7-CA-259. May ,21, 1951 Decision and Order On November 28, 1950, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices , and recommended that the complaint with respect thereto be dismissed . Thereafter, the Re- spondent, the General Counsel , and the charging Union filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and the Respondent filed a brief in support of its exceptions. 94 NLRB No. 104.