Soverign Productions, Inc.

SOVEREIGN PRODUCTIONS, INC. 359 SOVERIGN PRODUCTIONS, INC., and RALSTON & RIPLEY COMPANY' and OFFICE EMPLOYES' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 174, A.F.L., Petitioner. Case No. 21- RC-3263. December 15, 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 Floyd C. Brewer, 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 mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all office and clerical em- ployees of the Employer . The Employer and the Alliance of Television Film Producers , Inc., hereinafter called Alliance, 2 contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate and that an Alliance -wide unit is alone appropriate. The Alliance was formed in the fall of 1951 and is now com- prised of several members who are engaged in the production of television films . The Employer has been a member of the Alliance since it commenced operations on November 4, 1952. The Alliance , from its formation , has bargained , in behalf of its members , on a multiemployer basis with a number of labor organizations representing various production and technical employees . However, there is no history of collective bargain- ing covering the office clerical employees involved in this case, nor, except for Flying A Productions ,' is there a history of collective bargaining for any other office clerical employees of the members of the Alliance . We do not believe that the foregoing pattern of multiemployer bargaining for the Em- ployer's production and technical staff should preclude a finding that the unit of office employees sought herein is appropriate.4 'After the close of the hearing, the Petitioner moved, in effect, to withdraw that portion of its petition relating to the Ralston & Ripley Company as it was satisfied, after an examination of the record, that this company was not an "employer " At the hearing , the Employer con- tended that this portion of the petition should be dismissed on the ground that Ralston R, Ripley Company did not employ any employees within the unit requested . As the parties are now in substantial agreement, we shall grant the Petitioner 's request to withdraw that por- tion of the petition relating to Ralston & Ripley Company. 2 The Alliance was permitted to intervene in this proceeding. 3The record shows that prior to the formation of the Alliance , Flying A Productions recog- nized the Petitioner as the collective -bargaining representative of its office and clerical em- ployees, and it continues to bargain separately with the Petitioner for these employees 4Fibreboard Products , Inc., San Joaquin Division, 102 NLRB 405; Lownsbury Chevrolet Company, 101 NLRB 1752. 107 NLRB No 101 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we find that all office clerical employees of the Employer, excluding all other employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] J. G. BOSWELL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC- 2410. December 15, 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 Karin Nelson, 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 mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. A 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. 4. The appropriate unit: The Petitioner seeks a single unit of production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer ' s gins and oil mill located at Corcoran, Tulare, and Tipton, California.' The Employer agrees that this is an appropriate unit, except that the Employer would exclude, and the Petitioner would include, ranch-shop employees, feed-mill employees, and watchmen. The Employer would also exclude the water-department employees, while the Petitioner takes no position . The Petitioner would include certain seasonal employees , whereas the Employer contends that they should either be excluded or found ineligible to vote in any election directed herein. The Employer is a California corporation engaged in grow- ing cotton , alfalfa , and barley as well as raising cattle on its various ranches , which are located near the foregoing cities, and is also engaged in ginning, buying and selling cotton, and IThe Employer contends that the Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing of interest. We find no merit in this contention, as showing of interest is an administrative matter, not litigable by the parties. Yellow Cab Company , 103 NLRB 395. Moreover, we are satisifed that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing. 2 There are 7 gins and 1 oil mill at Corcoran, and 1 gin at both Tulare and Tipton. The latter cities are approximately 20 miles from Corcoran. 107 NLRB No. 105.