Telegraph Publishing Co.

TELEGRAPH PUBLISHING COMPANY 1173 WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union member- ship and activities ; advocate or assist the formation of, or recognize or negotiate with, a grievance committee as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of forestalling and defeating the selection of the union as their bargaining representative ; or promise and grant unilaterally, and without consultation with the union, wage and other benefits. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through represent- atives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to John J. Smith immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against him. WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with INTERNATIONAL AssocIA- TION OF MACHINISTS as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an agree- ment is reached, embody such understanding in a signed contract. The bargaining unit is: All our production and maintenance employees employed at our Fair- port, New York, plant, exclusive of all office and clerical employees, guards, professional and supervisory employees as defined in the Act. All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of the above-named union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that the right to refrain may be affected by a lawful agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. TRESCOTr COMPANY, INC., Employer. By ------------------------------ (Representative ) (Title) Dated------------------------------ This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. TELEGRAPH PUBLISHING COMPANY and AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO 7 PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-1942. February 9, 1953 Order Rescinding Certification On November 18, 1952, the Employer filed a motion with the Board requesting rescission of the certificate issued by the Board on May 25,1951, to the Petitioner in the above-entitled proceeding as exclusive bargaining representative of certain of the Employer's employees. 102 NLRB No. 113. 250983-vol. 102-53-75' 1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In its motion the Employer alleged that subsequent to the issuance of the foregoing certificate, the Petitioner "acted in collective bar- gaining with and through its Local Number 217, Nashua Newspaper Guild"; that Local 217 complied with the filing requirements of Sec- tion 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act on August 6, 1951, but permitted its compliance with these requirements to lapse on May 31, 1952; that on October 30, 1952, the Employer filed an RM petition with the Board (Case No. 1-RM-140), and that the Regional Director for the First Region thereupon notified Local 217 that if it did not within 10 days come into compliance the Employer's petition would be dis- missed. Thereafter, Local 217 having failed to renew its compliance with the Act, the Employer's petition was dismissed.' In support of its motion the Employer asserted that Local 217's deliberate failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Act has barred the processing of its RM petition and prevented the holding of an election to test Local 217's majority and the efficacy of the Peti- tioner's own outstanding certificate. This, the Employer contends, would be detrimental to it in any 8 (a) (5) proceeding which it might have to defend as a result of its refusal to bargain with Local 217, should this union in the future renew its compliance and insist on bargaining with the Employer.' In effect, the Employer contends that Local 217 by its above-related conduct abused the Board's processes and thwarted the effectuation of the purposes of the Act, and that the appropriate remedy therefor is rescission of the Petitioner's certifi- cate. The Employer's motion was not opposed. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Board, on January 2, 1953, issued a notice, which was duly served on the parties to this proceeding, including Local 217, requiring the parties to show cause in writing filed with the Board on or before January 12, 1953, why the Board should not grant the Employer's motion to rescind the Peti- tioner's certificate. No responses were received by the Board from any of the parties pursuant to this notice. Having carefully considered the Employer's motion, and being satisfied that the circumstances related herein warrant the exercise of the Board's powers over its certificate as requested by the Employer,3 'Dismissal of the Employer 's petition was in accordance with the Board' s holding In Herman Loewenstein, Inc., 75 NLRB 377, that because the question concerning representa- tion in an RM case is in fact raised by the claim for recognition by a labor organization, and not by the filing of the petition by the employer, the inclusion of the name of a non- complying union on the ballot in an RM election is precluded by the proscription in Section 9 (f) and ( h) against investigation of a question concerning representation raised by such noncomplying labor organization. 3 The Employer points to the Board's well-settled rule that a union's representative status established by a Board certification Is conclusively presumed for a reasonable period of time, customarily 1 year after certification, and indefinitely thereafter until such status Is shown to have ceased. United States Gypsum Company, 90 NLRB 964. 3 Lane Wells Company, 79 NLRB 252. CARBIDE & CARBON CHEMICALS COMPANY 1175 IT IS ORDERED that the certificate issued by the Board on May 25, 1951, to the American Newspaper Guild, CIO, as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the employees in the editorial, advertising, circulation, business, and maintenance departments, including mail- room employees, of Telegraph Publishing Company, Nashua, New Hampshire, be, and it hereby is, rescinded. CARBIDE & CARBON CHEMICALS COMPANY,' A DIVISION OF UNION CAR- BIDE & CARBON CORPORATION (OAK RIDGE K-25 PLANT) and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 760, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1914. February 9, 1953 Decision and Order Upon a petition filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Karl W. Filter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed., 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 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 sever from a present plantwide unit all hourly rated employees in the Employer's electrical-maintenance de- partment. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only a plantwide unit is appropriate, in view of the integration of operation and uniqueness of the manufacturing process, and long bargaining history on a plantwide basis existing in this plant. The Employer operates the K-25 atomic energy plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, under a contract with the Atomic Energy Commission. This plant utilizes a large number of buildings on a 600-acre tract, the main building being U-shaped, approximately half a mile long, and ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Board has already determined the issues involved in this case in its decision reported in Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 88 NLRB 437 (1950), and because of the integration of operations and the uniqueness of the manufacturing process in the plant involved. For reasons appearing in paragraph numbered 3 herein, this motion is granted. 3 United Chemical Workers, Local 288, CIO, the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract interest. 102 NLRB No. 121.