The Food Machinery and Chemical Corp.

PEERLESS PUMP DIVISION 369 In the systemwide unit herein found appropriate, we shall include gas employees at Nyack, New York, previously not represented by any labor organization, deeming them a natural accretion to the Employer's services. Employees at the Em- ployer's Tomkins Cove plant, however, voted in a consent election held in Case No. 2-RC-4763 on June 30, 1952, and chose the Electrical Workers as their exclusive collective- bargaining representative. In accordance with Section 9 (c) (3) of the amended Act, 9 we shall exclude these employees from the instant unit and not permit them to vote in the election directed herein. If, however, the Electrical Workers wins the election among other employees of the Employer, the Electri- cal Workers may bargain with the Employer for Tomkins Cove employees as a part of a systemwide unit. Upon the entire record in these cases, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All gas and electrical employees in the Eastern and Western Divisions in the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, including meter readers and employees at Nyack, New York, but excluding employees at the Tomkins Cove, New York, plant, office clerical employees, salesmen, guards, and executives, fore- men, and other supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board dismissed the petition filed by International Chemical Workers Union , AFL, Local 143, in Case No. 2-RC- 5531.] [Test of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 9This section provides, in part: "No election shallbe directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held " PEERLESS PUMP DIVISION OF THE FOOD MACHINERY AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION' and UNITED STEEL- WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC- 2988. June 4, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur Hailey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. 'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing, 105 NLRB No. 38. 37 0 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 , Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce withinthe meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor , Western Mechanics Local No. 700, International Union of Mine , Mill and Smelter Workers, plead their contract as a bar to this proceeding. The contract , dated June 25, 1952, provides in article I, section 1, that it shall be in effect until May 27, 1953, and renewed from year to year thereafter unless either party shall give written notice to the other of its desire to change or modify said Agreement. Such written notice shall be given between February 28, 1953, and March 27, 1953 . . . whereupon it shall become the duty of the parties to bargain collectively for the purpose of arriving at a new Agreement. . . . The petition herein was filed on March 10, 1953.2 As the contract enabled either party to effect its termina- tion or modification by notice at any time between February 28 and March 27, 1953 , we find that the contract remained open to a question concerning representation during that period, and that the Mill B date of March 27, 1953 , is therefore the critical date against which the timeliness of the petition must be deter- mined . 3 As this petition was filed on March 10, 1953, we find that it was timely filed and that the contract does not bar this proceeding . Accordingly , we find that a question affecting com- merce 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 parties stipulated, and we find , that the following em- ployees 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 the Employer ' s Los Angeles , California , plant, including factory janitors and shipping, stockroom , and test plant em- ployees, but excluding office and clerical employees wherever located, salesmen , office janitors , guards, timekeepers, blue- print operators , draftsmen , all engineers such as design, sales, progress , test, and mechanical engineers , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2On March 17, 1953, the Intervenor notified the Employer of its desire to negotiate certain modifications to their agreement in accordance with article I, section 1 The Employer, how- ever , refused to enter into negotiations pending the Board's disposition of the petition SGeneral Electric Company, 101 NLRB 619.