Harbor Furniture Manufacturing Co.

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HARBOR FURNITURE MANUFACTURING 'COMPANY and R. W. GIBSON and FURNITURE WORKERS, UPHOLSTERERS AND WOOD WORKERS UNION9 LOCAL No . 576, INDEPENDENT. Cases Nos. 21-RD-202, 21- RM-274, and 21-RM-290. August 12,1954 Decision and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held be- fore Earl 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 em- ployees of the Employer.2 3. The Independent contends that its 2-year contract with the Em- ployer, entered into on September 1, 1950, and containing a 60-day automatic renewal clause, was renewed on September 1, 1952, and again on September 1, 1953, and consequently, constitutes a bar to the instant proceeding. In opposing the contract-bar contention, the Employer urges: (1) That the 1950 contract was timely opened in 1953; and (2) that, in any event, the Independent was not in com- pliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act at the time the contract was negotiated 3 We deem it unnecessary to consider the merits of the 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer' s motions : (1) That the pro- ceeding in Case No. 21-UA-3258, and the subsequent Board union-shop authorization issued on December 18, 1950, be set aside on the ground that Furniture Workers, Uphol- sterers and Wood Workers Union, Local No. 576, Independent, hereinafter referred to as the Independent, was not at that time in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act; and (2) that the Board make a determination as to whether the officers and agents of the Inde- pendent had complied with the filing requirements of the Act at the time they negotiated the 1950 contract (here involved) with the Employer. In view of our determination herein to direct an immediate election in the instant proceeding, we hereby deny the motions, with- out prejudice to appropriate action by the Employer after the election herein, pursuant to Section 102.13 (b) (3) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended. See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville, Inc., 108 NLRB 490. s At the hearing, Harbor Independent Furniture Workers and Upholsterers Union, and United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, were permitted to intervene As the record dis- closes that each of the 3 unions involved in this proceeding exists for the purpose of en- gaging in collective bargaining with employers with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, we find all 3 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation, 76 NLRB 488 at 489. ,sin this regard, the hearing officer correctly denied the Employer' s motion made at the hearing, to be permitted to inquire fully into the compliance status of the Independ- ent. The Board has uniformly held that the fact of compliance by a labor organiza- tion which is required to comply with the filing requirements of the Act is a matter for administrative determination. See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville, Inc., supra. Moreover, as we are administratively satisfied that the Independent has remedied those defects in its compliance status pointed out in Administrative Determination of Com- pliance Status of Independent, 107 NLRB 872, and is now in compliance with the filing 109 NLRB No. 16. HARBOR FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY' 795 various contentions raised by the parties at the hearing and in their briefs regarding this issue in view of the fact that this contract is about to expire. Accordingly, we find that the agreement is not a bar to this proceeding.4 The Independent moved to dismiss the decertification petition 5 on the ground that the Petitioner in Case No. 21-RD-202 is not the real 'party in interest, but is acting as a front for Harbor Independent Furniture Workers and Upholsterers Union, an intervenor herein. We find no merit to this contention. The Act permits labor organi- zations as well as individual employees to file petitions for decertifi- cation of a recognized bargaining agent, provided that the petition- ing union has effected compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The Board's official record discloses that the above intervenor has complied with the Act's filing requirements. Accordingly, the Independent's motion to dismiss is hereby denied.6 The Independent further urges that this proceeding be held in abeyance and the processing of the petition be suspended pending the resolution of certain unfair labor practice charges filed against the Employer.7 In view of the fact that the Regional Director has dis- missed these charges for lack of merit, we are of the opinion that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act, and promote the orderly processes of collective bargaining to direct an immediate election herein, even though an appeal from the dismissal of the charges is pending before the General Counsel." 4. The parties agree that a unit of the Employer's production and maintenance employees is appropriate. There is a question, how- ever, as to the supervisory status of two "working foremen." Al- though the "working foremen," who, like other employees, are paid on an hourly basis, have previously been included in the bargaining unit, and do not have the power to hire, discharge, suspend, promote, discipline, or to effectively recommend such action, they do regularly assign jobs and responsibly direct the manner in which the work is to be performed. In addition, they are considered as a part of man- agement, occasionally attend supervisor meetings, and have the power requirements of the Act, we hereby deny the Employer 's motion in this respect which was referred to the Board For the same reasons, we find no merit to, and hereby dismiss, the Independent's motion filed subsequent to the hearing requesting that the Board defer fur- ther processing of the instant petitions pending the court's disposal of the Independent's complaint and motion for preliminary injunction in Furniture Workers, Upholsterers and Wood Workers Union, Local 576, v. Guy Farmer, et at., Civil Action No. 2990-54 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 4 Cf. Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc., of Pennsylvania, 106 NLRB 348. Union Oil Company of Califoinia, 96 NLRB 1016 , footnote 1 Thus, the Independent's motion to dismiss Cases 21-RM-274 and 21-RM-290 on contract -bar grounds is hereby denied. 5 21-RD-202 E Ketchum i Company, Inc , 95 NLRB 43, footnote 1. 21-CA-1831 and 21-CA-1941. United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company, 93 NLRB 1280, footnote 2. 796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to adjust minor grievances. Under these circumstances, we find the "working foremen" to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and, accordingly exclude them from the unit.' We find that all production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Hollydale and South Gate, California, plants, excluding salesmen, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, pro- fessional employees, working foremen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6 Iowa Public Service Company, 102 NLRB 701, footnote 6; Jordan-Rodgers Company, 107 NLRB 1136. LEWIS & BOWMAN, INC. and INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS ', BUILDING & COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, LABORERS' DISTRICT COUN- CIL OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, LOCAL UNION No. 836, A. F. L. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 66 & 66 A, B & C and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMER- ICA, LOCAL UNION #2274, A. F. L. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMER- ICA, TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL No. 40, LOCAL UNION No. 963, A. F. L., PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 6-RC-1398, 6-RC-1399, 6-RC- 1400, and 6-RC-1401. August 12,1954 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before William A. McGowan, 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 proceeding, he Board finds as follows : 1. The Employer, a Delaware corporation with its main offices at Goldsboro, North Carolina, is engaged in the general construction of bridges, dams, water spillways, flood walls, and similar projects in several States, including Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Its contracts performed during the calendar year ending December 31,1953, were valued at more than $750,000. 1 The Employer's request for oral argument is denied, inasmuch as the record and briefs in this proceeding clearly set forth the positions of the parties . The motion of the Carpenters' to reverse the hearing ofncer's ruling with respect to the intervention of United Mine Workers of America, Region 62, which claimed a contract interest in this proceeding, is denied. See footnote 4 below. 109 NLRB No. 113.