Snow & Nealley Co.

In the Matter of SNow & NEALLEY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and HOWARD A. THOMAS, PETITIONER and FEDERAL LA13011 U\10_\', LOCAL No. 24074, A. F. L., UNION Case No. 1-RD-5.-Decided February 26,1948 Mr. TWPm. Pickard, of Bangor, Maine, for the Employer. Mr. Ballard S. Keith, of Bangor, Maine, for the Petitioner. Mr. Ernest Eaton, of Bangor, Maine, for the Union. DECISION AN D DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Bangor, Maine, on November 6, 1947, before Thomas H. Ramsey, hearing officer.? The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirlned. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Snow & Nealley Company is a Maine corporation engaged at Bangor, Maine, in the manufacture of lumbering tools, and in the sale of mill and lumbering supplies and hardware specialties. Only the employees in its manufacturing plant are involved in this proceeding. In its manufacturing operations the Employer uses raw materials consisting principally of lumber, steel bars, and castings. During the calendar year ending September 30, 1947, the Employer purchased Iaw materials valued in excess of $75,000, of which approximately 50 percent was obtained from sources outside the State. During the same period it sold manufactured products in the value of $270,000, of which approximately 20 percent was shipped to points outside the State. ^ Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Bo.ud \Iembcis [Houston, Reynolds, and Gray] 76 N L. R. B , No. 53. 390 SNOW & NEALLEY COMPANY 391 The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 'II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED The Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor, was established on July 26, 1946, in Case No. 1-8- 3194, as exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's em- ployees as a result of a consent election. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On July 26, 1946, as noted above, the Union became exclusive repre- sentative of the Employer's employees as a result of a consent elec- tion. On January 7, 1947, the Employer executed an exclusive col- lective bargaining agreement with the Union for the term of 1 year, with provision for renewal from year to year thereafter unless notice to terminate was given by either party at least 30 days prior to the terminal date of the contract. The Union contends that this contract is a bar to the instant proceeding. In resolving the issue of "contract-bar"' in decertification cases, the Board will apply the same rules of decision as have been, and still are, applied with respect to petitions for investigation and certification of representatives.' In fact, it would seem that we are required to do so by Section 9 (c) (2) of the amended Act.3 Inasmuch as the instant petition was filed on October 8, 1947, before the operative date of the automatic renewal clause, the contract exe- cuted on January 7, 1947, would not be a bar to a certification pro- ceeding.4 We, accordingly, find that the contract is, similarly, no bar to the instant decertification proceeding. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APP11OPRIATE UNIT We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Bangor plant, excluding office and clerical employees, I See Report of Senate Labor Committee, No. 105, 80th Cong, 1st Sess., pp. 10, 25. 3 Section 3 ( c) (2) requires that, in determining whether a question of representation affecting commerce exists, the Board apply "the same regulations and rules of decision . . irrespective of the identity of the persons filing the petition or the kind of relief sought . . " Matter of Dretoi ys Limited, U S A , Inc., 74 N L It B 31 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD foremen, and all supervisors, guards, and professional employees, as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.s V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES As indicated in an earlier proceeding,' we are not precluded from directing an election on the instant petition by the fact that the Union has failed to comply with the registration and filing requirements of Section 9 (f) and (]l) of the amended Act. Accordingly, we shall place the Union's mine on the ballot in the election directed herein- after. Under our policy, the Union would be certified if it wins the election, provided that at that time it is in compliance with Section 9 (f) and (h) of the Act. Absent such compliance, the Board would only certify the arithmetical results of the election.' DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Snow & Nealley Company, Bangor, Maine, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the (late of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di- rector for the First Region, subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period innnechately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the (date of the election, and also exclud- ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Federal Labor Union, Local No. 24014, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining. This is virtually the unit in the consent election proceeding. as a result of winch the Union denionstiated its status as bargaining representative The description of the unit has been changed slightie to contorm iuth the piovisions of the amended Act ^Jlatter of Ffarras Foundnt d Machine Company, 76 N L It B 118 Matte, of Hairas Foundry d Machine Company, supra.