Wilson & Co., Inc.

WILSON & CO., INC. 769 WILSON & Co., INC.' and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-5304. January 28, 1953 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Meyer G. Reines, 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 organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer 2 3. The Intervenor contends that a current contract between it and the Employer is a bar to this petition. There is no merit to this con- tention. Following a Board certification on January 3, 1951, the Intervenor and the Employer executed a contract effective as of Jan- uary 22, 1951, for 1 year. This contract contained an automatic renewal clause providing that it should be renewed "from year to year thereafter, subject to reopening by either party on written notice mailed at least sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary date." This contract was automatically renewed on January 22, 1952, and likewise no written notice reopening the same was given by either party before November 23, 1952, the second annual "Mill B" date of this contract. However, as it appears that the petition herein was filed on October 31, 1952, some 23 days before the "Mill B" date, we find that the contract is not a bar to this petition.3 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. 4. The following groups of employees at the Employer's Stamford,, Connecticut, plant may constitute units appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. z Local 191 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL , was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract interest. 8 Burke Millwork Co , Inc., 100 NLRB 522. 102 NLRB No. 67. 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD excluding from each group office, clerical, and professional employees, salesmen, guards, department managers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act 4 Group (a) All truck drivers. Group (b) : All meat cutters and luggers. If a majority in each of the two groups vote for the same labor organization, they will be deemed to have indicated a desire to consti- tute a single unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization so chosen for such unit, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority in either group vote for a labor organization not also selected by the other, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of represent- atives to the labor organization so chosen for a unit composed of the employees in such group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] A The Petitioner desires to represent a plantwide unit including all truck drivers, meat cutters, and loggers . In the alternative it is willing to represent two separate units for the outside and inside employees . The Intervenor relies on the bargaining history in this plant under its contract with the Employer, contending that the present unit of the truck drivers it represents is appropriate . The Employer is opposed to separate units for its outside and inside employees. The record indicates that in the Employer 's Eastern District , which includes Metropolitan New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut , it has several plants where the Petitioner or the Intervenor represent plantwide units . It also has some plants, particularly the larger plants, where its employees are represented in separate units for its outside employees and its inside employees . As the truck drivers are a group such as the Board has frequently found may constitute either a separate unit or be part of a plantwide unit , we find that either a plantwide unit or separate units for the inside and outside employees may be appropriate in this case . Armour & Co . ( Los Angeles plant), 100 NLRB No. 129. Cf. Swift & Co., 99 NLRB 1497. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY and LOCAL 453, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF EI,EOTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO. Case No. R-CA-2047. January 09, 1953 Decision and Order On October 14, 1952, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease kind desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs. 102 NLRB No. 72.