Standard Brands, Inc.

STANDARD BRANDS, INCORPORATED 349 and that the Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suf- fered as a result of the discrimination by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement less his net earnings 11 to be computed on a quar- terly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other such period. It will also be recom- mended that the Respondent make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Nassau County Typographical Union #915 (AFL), and Newspaper and Mail Deliverers ' Union of New York and Vicinity are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing their employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles Waugh, thereby encouraging or discouraging membership in labor organizations , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] 11 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440. STANDARD BRANDS, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OP- ERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 661, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3297. July 20, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before James V. Altieri, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, 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. 95 NLRB No. 52 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all operating and maintenance en- gineers at the Employer's powerhouses in Peekskill, New York, in- cluding "senior oilers-junior engineers," but excluding all boilerhouse employees, office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, profes- sional employees, executives, and supervisors as defined in the Act. In the event the Board finds this unit inappropriate, the Petitioner alternatively requests a unit embracing all powerhouse employees, including maintenance and operating engineers, senior. oilers-junior engineers, maintenance helpers, and oilers, but with the same exclu- sions set forth above. Local 342, International Brotherhood of Fire- men and Oilers, AFL, the Intervenor herein, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that both units sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate. The Intervenor also took the position that the units established by bargaining history should be maintained, but if any change were to be made, it should be on the basis of an appropriate unit comprising the entire power department, including the boiler- house employees whom the Intervenor represents as well as those whom the Petitioner already represents and those for whom the Pe- titioner seeks to add to its present unit. The 'Employer takes no position with respect to the unit contentions. The Employer operates two powerhouses and a boilerhouse at Peek- skill. Since 1918 the Petitioner has separately bargained for the maintenance and operating engineers employed in the powerhouses. Concurrently, the Intervenor has separately represented the boiler- house employees, including the individuals classified as senior oilers- junior engineers, as well as the other oilers. For some time, it has been common practice for oilers assigned to the powerhouses to spend a substantial portion of their time in the performance of duties ordi- narily discharged by the operating engineers. In May 1949, the parties herein agreed to classify these employees as senior oilers-junior engineers, a position intermediate between the engineers and the oilers. The agreement further provided that these employees must, in addition to continuing their membership in the Intervenor's union, join the Petitioner's union, as well as pay dues to both. Nevertheless, the Intervenor continued to represent the senior oilers-junior engineers since the execution of that contract. Although operating engineers have been selected from the ranks of senior oilers-junior engineers, who, in turn, are chosen from among the oilers,. promotions to the position of oiler.have uniformly been made from employees in the boilerhouse and, on occasion, powerhouse oilers have been transferred • THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY 351 to lower job classifications in the boilerhouse. In addition, both the powerhouse and boilerhouse employees are under the common super-, vision of a chief engineer and his two assistants, and are listed on the same payroll. - While the Board has frequently recognized the inherent appropriate- ness of a single unit for engineers, oilers, and firemen,' the Petitioner does not ask for such a unit but seeks to merge only a fractional.part of the boilerhouse personnel into its present bargaining unit. Under the circumstances, we find that neither of the units for which the Peti- tioner contends is appropriate. As neither organization seeks an election in a broad powerhouse unit, we shall grant the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition herein. Order 'IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. I Cf. New Jersey Brewers Association et al ., 92 NLRB 1404 ; Armour 5 Company, 88 NLRB 309. THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT- ING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 1, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 30-RC- 451. July 20,1951 - Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudical 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer 2 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. I The Intervenor, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,,Local Union No. 154, CIO, moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that (1) the Petitioner has made no adequate current showing of interest ; ( 2) the petition was prematurely filed and is barred by an existing collective bargaining agreement and pension plan ; and (3) the unit sought is inappropriate. As to (1), the sufficiency of a petitioner's interest showing is a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable by the parties. Farrell-Cheek Steel Company, 88 NLRB 303. We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing is both current and adequate . As to ( 2) and ( 3), we find these contentions to be without merit for the reasons set forth below in paragraphs numbered a and 4, respectively. Accordingly, the Intervenor's motion is hereby denied. 2 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 95 NLRB No. 40.