Standard Automotive Manufacturing Co.

726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION , LOCAL 170, A. F. OF L., and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 578,1 PETITIONERS. Case No. 01-RC-3479. August 5,1954 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 P. J. Driscoll, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 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. 3. At the close of the hearing, the Petitioners requested permission to withdraw their joint petition, stating that: "Frankly, we are going to take a strike vote," and, further, that " . . . we feel that the em- ployer is duty bound under the law to bargain with us without a certi- 3 The names of the joint Petitioners were amended at the hearing Furthermore, after the close of the hearing, a motion to amend designation of labor organization was filed with the Board. This motion stated that one of the joint Petitioners , Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 548, A. F. of L, had been amalgamated with another local of the same International ; that the amalgamated union was designated as Sheet Metal Workers International Association , Local Union No. 170, A. F. of L. , that the members of Local 578 had been transferred to Local 170 ; and that Local 170 had been authorized to act in the place of Local 548 It was moved, therefore , that the designation of Local 170 be substituted for Local 548 in the present proceeding. The motion having been served on the other pai ties, and no objection thereto having been received, the motion is herph- granted. 2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer' s various motions to dismiss the petition herein. These motions were based upon the following grounds, among others : (1) That a joint petition is improper ; (2) that the showing of interest was made in behalf of only one of the joint Petitioners ; and (3 ) that the Employer contemplates an expand- ing work force, changes in the present personnel , and a change in the physical location of its place of business We find these contentions without merit as: (1) The Board has consistently held that two or moie labor organizations may appropriately bargain as joint representatives (Mission Appliance Corporation, 108 NLRB 170, footnote 4; General Electric Company (River Works), 107 NLRB 70, footnote 3) ; (2) it is well -established Board policy that the adequacy of a showing of interest , on behalf of single or joint peti- tioners , is not litigable, and, in any event, we have administratively determined that the joint Petitioners have made an adequate showing (Mission Appliance Corporation, supra) ; and (3 ) the Employer's plans to move his plant and to change and expand his work force are largely conjectural and, in any event, do not establish persuasive reasons for depriving the present employees of representation, if they desire it, until the contemplated changes occur The Employer's motions to dismiss on the grounds indicated are therefore denied 3 The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that although it is engaged in commerce, the Board should not as a matter of policy assert jurisdiction in this pro. ceeding The Petitioners joined in this motion after the hearing officer denied their request to withdraw their petition As the Employer, which manufactures automobile accessories, ships out of the State of California products valued at about $300,000, we find that 'it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding 109 NLRB No. 97. MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY 727 fication, and if he doesn't do that we are going to take economic action." The hearing officer denied the Petitioners' request to withdraw. We agree with this ruling in view of the Petitioners' continuing claim to representation and their threats to take economic action to achieve recognition. Accordingly; we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the 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 all production and main- tenance employees, including warehousemen, shipping and receiving employees, and truckdrivers, but excluding office employees, technical employees, traffic manager, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act,4 constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting : I do not believe an election should be directed in this case. On the one hand, the Employer moves the Board to dismiss the petition, and on the other, the Petitioners seek to withdraw the petition. No party desires an election. Request to withdraw the petition was made be- fore the close of the hearing. Under the Sears, Roebuck formula,' I would permit withdrawal of the petition without prejudice. 4 The parties stipulated and we find that Angelina Corrales and Julian Rico are super- visors within the meaning of the Act. B Sears, Roebuck & Company, 107 NLRB 716. MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY and WILLARD W. CAR- PENTER MISCELLANEOUS DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL No. 638, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL (MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY) and WILLARD W. CARPENTER . Cases Nos. 18- CCA-579 and 18-0B-55. August 6,1954 Decision and Order On March 25, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceedings, finding that the Respondents, Minneapolis Star and Tribune Com- pany, herein called the Respondent Company, and Miscellaneous Driv- 109 NLRB No. 109.