The Coleman Co., Inc.

120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a craft group of the type to whom we have frequently awarded sev- erance," they may, if they so desire constitute a separate appropriate unit. We shall direct a self-determination election for the following employees of the Employer : 9 All foundry production employees, including helpers and appren- tices, engaged in the making and processing of aluminum castings, but excluding the inspector and his helper,10 office and clerical em- ployees, all other production and maintenance employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the voting group heretofore described which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Inter- venor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] constituting appropriate units. Texas Foundries, Inc., 83 NLRB 679; National Farm Machinery Cooperative, Inc., 88 NLRB 125; Goslin-Birmingham Manufacturing Company, 84 NLRB 957. 8 The Fayscott Corporation, 78 NLRB 1256 ; W. A. Jones Foundry tG Machine Co., 83 NLRB 211; United States Pipe A Foundry Co., 87 NLRB 115. 9 By reason of the fact that no other member of the association conducts an operation similar to the one herein involved , the unit described is limited to employees of the Employer rather than expanded to be coextensive with the multiemployer association, Members of The California State Brewers Institute, 90 NLRB 1747. Cf. Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 94 NLRB 477 , where although only one member of a multiemployer association conducted a lithographic operation , the Board granted craft severance for a broad unit coextensive with the association . In that case the petitioner sought the broader unit whereas in the instant case the Petitioner seeks a single employer unit. io The record discloses that the inspector and his helper , whom the Petitioner would include and the Employer exclude, perform inspection duties in other departments of the John Bean western division and are separately supervised . They are therefore excluded from the voting group. THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORMERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-1•3219. Oc- tober 28,195f2 Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 15, 1952, under 101 NLRB No. 51 THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC. 121 the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seven- teenth Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit. There- after, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that of approximately 1,214 eligible voters, 1,118 cast valid ballots, of which 403 were for the Petitioner, 71 were for International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 70, AFL, herein called the Machinists, 598 were for National Independent Union Council, Independent Ap- pliance Workers' Union, herein called the Independent, and 5 were against the participating labor organizations; there were 41 chal- lenged ballots. On August 22, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the matters raised by the Peti- tioner's objections and, on October 8, 1952, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the objec- tions did not raise substantial or material issues with respect to the election, and recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Independent be certified on the basis of the tally of ballots. There- after, the Petitioner filed a document entitled motion to withhold certification, and the Independent filed an answer thereto. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con- nection with this case to a three-member panel. [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 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 Petitioner, the Machinists, and the Independent are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Em- ployer. 3. A 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. 4. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at all of the Employer's plants located in and around Wichita, Kansas, including shipping and receiving employees, but excluding employees in department 31 (tool- room employees wherever located), lithographic production employ- ees, office clerical employees, factory clerks, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. In support of its motion to withhold certification, the Petitioner relies on (1) matters pertaining to the alleged noncompliance of the 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Independent with the provisions of Section 9 (g) of the Act; (2) the alleged failure of the Independent properly to administer in a non- discriminatory fashion, the contract which it had executed on Jul v 15, 1950, for a 2-year period, as the representative of the employees involved in this proceeding; and (3) alleged assistance and support given to the Independent by the Employer during the period prior to the filing of the petition in this case. These matters were not, how- ever, raised by the Petitioner in its objections, and the Petitioner does not take exception to the specific findings and conclusions made by the Regional Director in his report on objections. We find accord- ingly, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the Petitioner's objections are without merit,. and they are hereby overruled. With respect to the matters raised for the first time in the Petitioner's motion, the Board has consistently held, as to (1), that the fact of compliance by a labor organization which is required to comply is a matter for administrative determination and the Board is administra- tively satisfied that the independent is and, at all times material to this proceeding, has been in compliance? We find, accordingly, that this contention is without merit. We also find that contentions (2) and (3) do not constitute a valid basis for withholding certification at this time 2 As to (2), the Board has held that a statutory bar- gaining agent is charged with the duty of according equal representa- tion to all employees in the bargaining unit, and that the Board has power to rescind its certification in the event such equal representa- tion is not accorded 3 The Independent has denied that it has failed to accord equal representation to all employees in the unit. More- over, the Petitioner's motion does not establish that the Independent will not accord adequate representation to all employees in the appro- priate unit. We shall therefore not withhold certification of the In- dependent on the basis of the Petitioner's allegations with respect to such matters. Such action is, however, without prejudice to the Board considering the recission of such certification, in the event it is later shown, upon appropriate motion, that the Independent has failed to accord equal representation to any employee in the certified unit.4 As to (3), the Petitioner had filed charges with the Regional Director embodying the substance of this contention and had, prior to the election, filed a waiver with respect to the matters contained in such charges. Moreover, this contention in substance alleges that the Employer has violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, and the Board ' See Sunbeam Corporation, 94 NLRB 844; Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917; cf. N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Manufacturing Company, 341 U. S. 322. 2 As these contentions were not timely raised with respect to the election, we shall not consider them as a basis for setting aside the election. See National Container Corporation of Wisconsin, 99 NLRB 1492. 8 Veneer Products, Inc., 81 NLRB 492, 493. Veneer Products, Inc., supra. MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. 123 has held that it will not, in a representation proceeding, determine whether the Employer has so violated the Act .5 We find, accordingly, that this contention is without merit, and the Petitioner's motion is hereby denied. As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections and denied its motion, we shall certify the Independent in accordance with the tally of ballots. Certification of Representatives IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that National Independent Union Council, Independent Appliance Workers' Union, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of The Coleman Company, Inc., Wichita, Kansas, in the appropriate unit, described in paragraph numbered 4, above, as their representative for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 5 The Electric Auto-Lite Company, 89 NLRB 1407, 1410. MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC. AND PETER KIEWIT SONS' COM- PANY 1 and HADLEY WOODROW STEPHENS OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND CEMENT FINISHERS INTERNATIONAL Asso- CIATION, LOCAL No. 867, AFL and HADLEY WOODROW STEPHENS. Cases Nos. 19-CA-550 and 19-CB-175. October 29, 1952 Decision and Order On February 19, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent Company filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The General Counsel and the Respondent Union filed no exceptions. The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. I Herein jointly called Respondent Company. 2 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 Styles and Peterson]. 101 NLRB No. 40.