Paris Manufacturing Co.

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 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 requests a unit of woodsmen employed in the log- ging and pulpwood operations of the Employer in New Hampshire, but would exclude, among others, bonded Canadian woodsmen. The Employer contends, inter alia, that its Canadian woodsmen are part of the unit and entitled to vote in an election, and it moves therefore to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner's showing of interest in the appropriate unit is inadequate. That motion is hereby granted. For the reasons stated in Brown Company, 109 NLRB 173, pub- lished this date, in which we considered an identical issue under com- parable facts, we hold that the e'mployer's Canadian woodsmen should be included in the unit and are eligible to vote. An election in a unit including Canadians is, however, precluded as the Petition- er's showing of interest in such unit is inadequate. We shall accord- ingly dismiss the petition herein.- [The Board dismissed the petition.] - In view of this dispostion, we need not pass upon other issues raised by the Employer's motion to dismiss. PARIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD LOCAL 75, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-3559. July 14, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Greene, 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 109 NLRB No. 26. BROWN COMPANY 173 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation 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:1 The Petitioner desires an election among woodsmen employed at the Employer's Camp "C" woodlands operations in Maine, excluding bonded Canadian woodsmen. The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the grounds, among others, that the unit sought is inappro- priate since it excludes Canadians and that the Petitioner's showing of interest in the appropriate unit is inadequate. That motion is here- by granted. For the reasons stated in Brown Company, 109 NLRB 173, pub- lished this date, in which we considered an identical issue under com- parable facts, we hold that the Employer's Canadian woodsmen should be included in the unit and are eligible to vote. An election in a unit including Canadians is, however, precluded as the Petitioner's show- ing of interest in such unit is inadequate. We shall accordingly dis- miss the petition herein.2 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 1 The Employer's request for oral argument is denied, inasmuch as the record in our opinion adequately reflects the positions of the parties and the issues herein. 2 In view of this disposition, we need not pass upon other issues raised by the Employer's motion to dismiss. BROWN COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD LOCAL 75, INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF THE PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-3524. July 14, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Greene, 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation 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:' 1 As the record , in our opinion, adequately reflects the positions of the parties and the issues herein , the Employer 's request for oral argument is denied. 109 NLRB No. 25.