Consolidated Iron-Steel Manufacturing Co.

TAYLOR AND BOGGIS FOUNDRY DIVISION 481 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 {,a) (5 ) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] TAYLOR AND BOGGIS FOUNDRY DIVISION OF THE CONSOLIDATED IRON- STEEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY' and INTERNATIONAL UNION,, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1497. March 6,1953 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Ness, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's plant. The Employer and the In- tervenor, International Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL, contend that the only appropriate unit is one associa- tion-wide in scope. From 1934 to June 1950 the Employer and the intervenor bar- gained collectively for the former's employees as a separate unit. In April 1950 the Employer joined a trade association, The Manufac- turers' Protective & Development Association, herein called the Association, which has been bargaining with the Intervenor on an association-wide basis since 1891.2 On June 6, 1950, the Employer, I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. I Kalamazoo Stove and Furnace Company , 61 NLRB 1041. 98 NLRB No. 83. 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Association, and the Intervenor signed an agreement terminating the individual contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, and binding the Employer to the existing conference agreement which covered the association-wide unit. The Employer has continued to be a member of the Association and to be bound by association-wide contracts a The Petitioner filed its petition on October 31, 1951. Sine( joining the Association, the Employer has been bound by three successive association. -wide contracts. Two of these were signed before the Petitioner made its rival claim of representation. The Employer's inclusion in the association-wide unit under the terms of these two t'greements has extended over approximately 19 months. We believe that this is a sufficiently long period to preclude the establishment now of a single employer unit .4 We find that the Petitioner's proposed unit is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the petition. Order IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3 The Employer and the Intervenor do not claim that the existing association-wide contract, which will not expire until December 31, 1952, is a bar. 4In The Manufacturers' Protective & Development Association (Consolidated Iron-Steel Manufacturing Company, Taylor and Boggis Division), 95 NLRB 1059, issued August 13, 1951, a union-security election case involving the same Employer, a majority of the Board directed an election in a single employer unit, holding that a one year history of association- wide bargaining was too brief to make this broader unit the only appropriate one. At the present time, however, this bargaining history has extended over almost 2 years. KENOSHA AUTO TRANSPORT CORPORATION and TRUCK DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 654, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1430. March 10, 195-9 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard C. Curry, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 'The Employer's motion to dismiss is granted for reasons hereinafter stated. 98 NLRB No. 85.