Busch & Sons, Inc.

BUSCH & SONS, INC. 809 we find, that each group comprises a well-defined craft group, whose respective employees may, if they so desire, constitute separate appro- priate units.,' In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among the employees of the Employer's Port Neches, Texas, plant, in the voting groups set forth below, excluding all other employees and su- pervisors, as defined in the Act : (a) All pipefitters, pipefitter-welders, their helpers, and trainees. (b) All electricians, their helpers, and trainees. (c) All instrumentmen, their helpers, and trainees. If a majority of the employees in any of the voting groups vote for the Pipefitters or the IBEW where these labor organizations appear on the ballot, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to consti- tute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certificate of rep- resentatives to the Pipefitters or the IBEW for the applicable unit described 'in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under such cir- cumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargain- ing. In_the event a majority of the employees in any of the voting groups vote against the Pipefitters or the IBEW, they shall continue to be represented by the IAM-BTC 11 as part of the existing mainte- nance unit and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] "Instrument men : Phillips Oil Company, 94 NLRB 1438; B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company, supra. Electricians : Sinclair Rubber, Inc., 96 NLRB 220 ; Shell Chemical Cor- poration, 94 NLRB 121. We have administratively determined that the Electricians has made an adequate showing of interest among the separate groups of instrumentmen and electricians. See Tin Processing Corporation, 96 NLRB 300. "The IAM-BTC did not desire to be placed on the ballot of any of the above voting groups. BUSCH & SONS, INC., PETITIONER and LOCAL 108, RETAIL UNION OF NEW JERSEY, AFFILIATED WITH RETAIL, WHOLESALE & DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO. Case No. 2-RM-349. March 25, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Bernard Marcus, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' I At the hearing the Union moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition did not state that the Employer-Petitioner had refused to recognize the Union as the exclu- 98 NLRB No. 133. 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, a New Jersey corporation engaged in the retail and wholesale sale of jewelry, electrical appliances, costume jewelry, etc., operates two stores in Newark, New Jersey, one in Summit, New Jersey, and a fourth store in Montgomery, Alabama. For the year ending December 1, 1951, the Employer's sales totaled $835,587, of which $314,000 consisted of sales to customers outside New Jersey.2 The Employer's sales in Alabama amounted to $74,000. During the same period the Employer's purchases totaled $563,590, of which 88 percent was made outside New Jersey. From these facts it is apparent, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to exercise jurisdiction.3 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Petitioner. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees involved- within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons : The Employer-Petitioner asserts that all employees of its three New Jersey stores,4 including sales, maintenance, and clerical employees but excluding professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors constitute the appropriate unit. The Union alleges that the only unit in which it claims representative status, a unit of employees at the Broad Street store only, is the appropriate unit. On April 9, 1951, the Union requested recognition as bargaining agent for the Employer's "New Jersey employees," and on April 10, sive bargaining representative. The record reveals that the petitioner at the hearing, and before, refused the recognition requested by the Union. The failure of the petition to allege a refusal of recognition by the Employer is not a jurisdictional defect . Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29. The Union further requested the dismissal of the petition' on the ground that the Employer has not complied with Section 9 ( h) of the Act. The filing requirements of Section 9 (h) apply to labor organizations only. The Board there- fore denies the Union's motions to dismiss the petition. 2 All but a small percentage of the Employer 's out-of-State sales are made to Busch & Sons of Texas, a Texas corporation operating two jewelry stores in that State . The stock- holders of the New Jersey company also own the stock of the Texas corporation ; the chair- man of the board of the New Jersey company is president of the Texas corporation ; and the president of the New Jersey company is vice president of the Texas corporation and is responsible for the operations of both corporations . In this case it is immaterial whether the Texas corporation be considered as part of the parent organization or as a separate entity, as in either event the Employer would be engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, as shown above, there are other facts which bring the Employer within the coverage of the Act and within the Board 's standards for exercising jurisdiction. S The Borden Company, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628 . See also Stanislaus Imple- ment and Hardware Co., Ltd., 91 NLRB 618. The Springfield Avenue store in Newark is 8 blocks from the Broad Street store, and the Summit, New Jersey, store is approximately 8 miles away. HARDY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 811 1951, commenced picketing at all three stores. Within a week the pickets were withdrawn from the Springfield Avenue and Summit stores, but at the time of the hearing picketing continued at the Broad Street establishment. On November 1, 1951, the Union sent a letter to the Employer in which the Union expressly restricted its claim of representation to the employees of the Broad Street store. At the hearing also, the Union disavowed any claim to represent the employees at the Springfield Avenue and Summit stoves and continued to limit its claim to the representation of employees at the Broad Street store only.5 As the Union does not claim to represent the employees in the three New Jersey stores, we find that no question concerning representa- tion is raised by the Employer's petition.e The Board, therefore, will dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 5 The record contains conflicting testimony as to when and how the Union first changed its position. As the record otherwise clearly proves that on November 1, 1951, and at the hearing, the Union claimed to represent the employees at one store only, it is not necessary for the Board to resolve the conflicts of testimony. 6 Coeur D'Alene Grocers Association, 88 NLRB 44. HARDY MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INDEPENDENT AUTO WORKERS COMMITTEE, PETITIONER . Cage No. 35-RC 617. March 25, 1952 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce with the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' ' The Employer and the Intervenor , the International Association of Machinists , District No. 90, and its affiliated Local Lodge No. 1076, AFL , contend that the Petitioner is not a labor organization . The Petitioner's membership consists of about 100 of the Employer's Pendleton , Indiana, employees. It has officers , and the bylaws provide for a bargaining 98 NLRB No. 127.