Reade Scientific Corp.

In the Matter of READS SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and FURNITURE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 76-B, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 2-R-7036.-Decided April 10, 1917 Mr. Leo Isaacson, of New York City, for the Employer. Mr. Harry Weinstock, of New York City, for the Petitioner. Messrs..Sidney Jacobi, Samuel Rothenberg, and Abraham. H. Saul, all of New York City, for the Intervenor. Mr. Warren H. Leland, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing m this case was held at New York City, on October 15, 16, and 24, 1946, before Jerome I. Macht, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Reade Scientific Corporation, a New York corporation, with its principal office and plant located in Bronx, New York, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of furniture and woodwork. During the past year, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, approximately 30 percent of which was received from points outside the State of New York. During the same period, the Employer manufactured and sold finished products valued in ex- cess of $100,000, approximately 50 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Em- ployer. Furniture & Wood Novelty Workers Union, Local 3127, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called the 73 N L R. B , No. 56. 310 READE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION 311 Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor, clamming to represent employees of the Employer. III. Tlili QUES'IION CONCERNING REP1n:SEN'I'ATION About July 26, 1946, the Intervenor requested recognition as bar- gaining agent for the Employer's employees. The Employer refused to comply with such request at that time, stating that he would take the matter up wltli his attorney. About August 16, 1946, the Petitioner made its claim to representation and although it rnet with the Em- ployer on three occasions subsequent to that time, it delayed filing its petition until September 10, 1946. On September 9, 1946, the Em- ployer and the Intervenor executed a 1-year collective bargaining agreement, and they urge that under the General Electric X-Ray doctrine,' clue to the late filing of the petition by the Petitioner, the contract precludes a present determination of representatives. The Petitioner contends that during the meetings referred to above, the Employer had recognized its majority status and that the confer- ences were held for the purpose of negotlatingoa contract. The Peti- tioner therefore urges that under those circumstances, the General Electric X-Ray rule should not apply. The Employer refutes this contention by asserting that its meetings with the Petitioner were held only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Petitioner in fact represented a majority of its employees, and that the Petitioner had not proved its claim to the satisfaction of the Employer. Upon the entire record in the case, we are of the opinion and find that the Employer had not recognized the Petitioner as bargaining representative nor justified the Petitioner in the belief that it might aclueve recognition without a Board determination at the time of the execution of the agreement with the Intervenor herein on Sep- tember 9, 1946. We therefore reject the Petitioner's assertion that the rule enunciated in the General Eleotiic X-Ray case should not apply, and find that the September 9, 1946, contract precludes a current determination of reps esentatlves. We shall dismiss the petition herein. ORDER IT IS I-1EREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi- cation of representatives of employees of Reade Scientific Corpora- tion, New York City, filed by Furniture Workers Union, Local 76-B, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CI-LURIIAN IIERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 'Matter of General Plee(,ic Y-Roi/ Co?poratson , 67 N L R B 997 ( Where a petition is filed more than 10 days after the assertion of a bare claim of representation, and no extenuating ciicumstances appear , an agreement otherwise valid, which is executed in the interval constitutes a ban )