The Mennen Co.

THE MENNEN COMPANY 677 lowed the policy of requiring, where there has been such an established history of collective bargaining on a multiplant basis, that severance of craft employees must be coextensive with the multiplant unit." As the unit sought by the Petitioner is limited to the Akron plants, it is inappropriate. Conse- quently, we shall dismiss the petition.14 [The Board dismissed the petition.] is American Steel Foundries, Alliance Works, supra and cases cited therein. 14 Member Peterson agrees that the petition in this case should be dismissed in view of the history of collective bargaining on a broader basis. However, by joining in the result here reached he does not wish to be understood as agreeing with the implication that if craft organization had been coextensive with the multiplant unit, severance should be permitted See his dissenting opinion in W C Hamilton & Sons, 104 NLRB 627. THE MENNEN COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-1921. June 19, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene M. Levine, 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 within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The Petitioner and Local No. 649, International Union of Automobile Workers, AFL, which intervened on the basis of its contractual interest, claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: On November 15, 1951, and February 8, 1952, respectively, the Intervenor and the Employer executed separate contracts, effective until May 15, 1954, covering employees at the Em- ployer's warehouse in Kearny, New Jersey, and the pro- duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Newark, New Jersey. The Intervenor contends that these contracts constitute a bar to a present determinationof repre- sentatives and therefore moves the dismissal of the petition. The Petitioner seeks a single unit of these employees who 105 NLRB No. 101. 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have transferred to the Employer ' s new plant in Morris Town- ship , New Jersey , and opposes the Intervenor ' s contention on the grounds that ( 1) this plant is tantamount to a new operation, ( 2) the contracts are of unreasonable duration , and (3) members of the original signatory Local 102 had no voice in the assign- ment of these contracts to the intervening Local in the same International Union . The Employer takes a neutral position on the contract -bar issue. During the 3-year period ending in the firstpart of 1953, the Employer , which was manufacturing toiletries in Newark and using warehouse and shipping facilities in Kearny , constructed a plant in Morris Township for the purpose of consolidating its operations . The new plant was put into partial operation in February 1953. By the time of the hearing , April 6, 1953, the Newark plant was vacated , and most of its machinery as well as 95 percent of its 140 production andmaintenance employees were transferred to the new plant where they resumed their regular work assignments . It was also indicated that by May 1, l 53, the anticipated date for full operation of the new plant, the Kearny warehouse would no longer be functioning and all of its 39 employees would be at the new plant performing their customary warehouse duties. At its new location the Employer manufactures the same products and carries on the same functions as those previously performed at Newark and Kearny . Although the layout at Morris Township has necessitated some changes in equipment and operation , it appears from the record that the Employer's production techniques and processes have not been altered in any substantial manner . As already noted , most of the machinery formerly used in Newark is now at the new plant where the transferred employees continue to work at their old jobs. The supervisory personnel from Newark and Kearny has also been completely shifted to Morris Township. Under these circumstances , we conclude that the Morris Township operation of the Employer is essentially nothing more than the Newark and Kearny operations transferred to a new location . It follows therefore that the 1951 and 1952 contracts cover the employees at the new location .' We find, without deciding whether these contracts are of unreasonable duration , that they are a bar under the Board's current rule as they have been in effect for considerably less than 2 years.' Finally, we find the Petitioner ' s contention that the contracts were improperly assigned to the Intervenor is without merit as the only change in the character and status of the contract- ing union is one of designation,$ I Pluss, Poultry Inc., 100 NLRB 64; Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 131 2Cf. Kerstetter Silk Throwing Co., Inc., 103 NLRB 335; Bath Iron Works Corporation, 101 NLRB 849. 3 The Louisville Railroad Company, 90 NLRB 678; Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Com- pany of Baltimore, 89 NLRB 231. H. W. RICKEL AND COMPANY 679 Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that the existing contracts between the Employer and the Intervenor constitute a bar to a present determination of representatives . Accordingly , we shall grant the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] H. W. RICKEL AND COMPANY; FROEDTERT GRAIN & MALT - ING COMPANY , INC. and DETROIT BREWERS AND MALT- STERS UNION , a unit of LOCAL 547 of the INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-2025 . June 19, 1953 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston , Murdock, and Styles]. The Board has omitted from the caption the name of the Detroit Malt and Grain Co. Although notice of hearing was served upon this company , it did not appear at the hearing. All parties stipulated that it was no longer in business. Although Froedtert Grain & Malting Company, Inc ., did not desire to enter an appearance or participate in the proceeding, its representative was present . The representative , however, did enter into a stipulation with respect to the company's operation. The parties stipulated to the inclusion as part of the record in this case the testimony in Goebel Brewing Company , et al,1 pertaining to the motion of Detroit Brewers and Maltsters Union, which filed the petition in this case , to amend its name to show its affiliation with Local 547, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL, herein called Local 547, and the motion of the latter organization to intervene . For the reasons stated in our decision in the Goebel case, ' we grant the motion to amend , have amended the caption of this case accordingly, and consider Local 547 a proper intervenor inthis proceeding. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, CIO , herein called the CIO, and its Local Union No. 3, were permitted to intervene on the basis of their contractual interest . We deny the CIO's 1105 NLRB 698. 2 Ibid. 105 NLRB No. 100. Z91555 0 - 54 - 44