Dant & Russell, Ltd.

252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cafeteria employees, nurses, carpenters, carpenters' helpers, painters, painters' helpers, clerical employees, and truck drivers who transport materials between the two plants 4 In the instant case, the Petitioner takes the same position it advanced in the prior cases referred to above with respect to the exclusions of these categories of employees." We are persuaded from the testimony presented in the instant case that the functions and duties of these employees are substantially the same as they were at the time of the previous cases. We shall therefore exclude them from the unit. The parties have agreed, and we find, that executives, superin- tendents, foremen, and foreladies are supervisors. We shall accord- ingly exclude them from the unit. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Monroe Road plant, including firemen, air-condi- tioning men, and cone inspectors, but excluding fixers, cafeteria em- ployees, nurses, truck drivers, painters, painters' helpers, carpenters, carpenters' helpers, clerical employees, executives, superintendents, foremen, foreladies, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute 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.] 4 The Petitioner and Employer have agreed to include in the unit the air-conditioning men and the cone inspectors, in addition to the firemen referred to above I In the first of the earlier cases (56 NLRB 1250), the Petitioner requested that fixers be included in the unit. As the Employer did not oppose the Petitioner's position, the Board included the fixers. However, in the later proceeding (64 NLRB 1420), the Petitioner requested that the fixers be excluded. We granted that request on the basis of our holdings in other cases that there exists a well-established pattern of collective bargaining in the full-fashioned hosiery industry whereby fixers are excluded from units of production and maintenance employees. Mock, Judson, Voehringer Company of North Caroltina, Inc., 63 NLRB 96. THOMAS W. DANT, ROBERT E. DANT (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN FOR DIANA KERR AND DAPHNE KERR ), JOHN R. DANT, ELEANOR C. DANT, MARY B. DANT, R. J. DARLING, E. S. GOODELL, MRS. MARY GOODELL, GLENN W. CHENEY, AND DOROTHY D. MCNARY, CO- PARTNERS, D/B/A DANT & RUSSELL, IIra, and INTERNATIONAL WOOD- WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 6-7. Case No. 36-CA-100. July 17, 1951 Order Denying Motion On November 29, 1950, the Board issued its Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding," finding that the Respondents had en- gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and 192 NLRB 307. 95 NLRB No. 44. GLOBE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA 253 ordering the Respondents to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action. On June 6,1951, the Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Decision and Order. No responses in favor of or in opposition to the motion were received from the Union or the General Counsel 2 .The motion alleges, inter alia, that "the Board lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the case in contravention of Section 9 (h)" of the Act. We find no merit in this ground, nor in the other grounds stated in the motion which raise no new matter not previously considered by the Board in the Decision and Order. The Union filed its charge herein on August 3, 1949, and the Board issued its complaint on March 28, 1950. We have administratively determined that the charging Union, as well as its parent federation, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, were in full compliance with the filing requirements of Sections 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act substantially, in advance of the issuance of the complaint in this proceeding.3 Accordingly, we shall deny the motion. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondents' motion for reconsidera- tion be, and it hereby is, denied. s The Respondents' request for oral argument before the Board is denied as we believe the issues and the position of the Respondents are adequately presented. $ See Southern Fruit Distributors, 80 NLRB 1283 , and H ct H Manufacturing Company, Inc., 87 NLRB 1373, in which the Board held that the Act requires compliance at the time of the issuance of the complaint , rather than at the time of the filing of the charge. See also N. L. R. B. V. Highland Park Mfg. Company, 71 S. Ct. 758. GLOBE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA and Dis- TRICT .LODGE # 1, INTERNATIONAL-AssoCIATION OF MACHINISTS. Case No. 4-CA-410. July 18, •1951 Decision and Order On April 10, 1951, Trial Examiner Frederic B. Parkes 2nd issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in 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 In- termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial, Examiner 1 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]. 95 NLRB No. 42.