The Federal Refractories Corp.

THE FEDERAL REFRACTORIES CORPORATION 257 sentation1° The voting group established by the majority here does not, in our opinion, satisfy any of these criteria. We therefore would not disrupt the present 12-year-old unit," which suffers from no omis- sions different from those from which the petition itself suffers, and whose structure does not contravene Board policy12 We would leave well enough alone. "Albert's Incorporated, 90 NLRB 110, 111; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8 , 10. Cf. Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109. "Maiden Form Brassiere Co., 96 NLRB 678 Pacific Trailways, 91 NLRB 559; Albert's Incorporated, supra. " Cf. KTTV, Inc., 97 NLRB 1477 ; KMTR Radio Corporation, ELAC-TV, 85 NLRB 99. THE FEDERAL REFRACTORIES CORPORATION, PETITIONER and UNITED BRICK AND CLAY WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 469, AFL. Case No. 8-RM-56. July-16,19510 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Carroll L. Martin, 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-mem- ber panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. As the result of a consent election conducted in 1945, United Brick-and Clay Workers of America, Local 469, AFL, herein called Local 469, was certified as the bargaining representative for the, em- ployees here involved.' Since 1945, Local 469 has, with the assist- ance of its parent organization, acted as the bargaining agent of these employees under successive contracts with the Employer. On December 26, 1951, and again on January 30, 1952, United Construc- tion Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers, challenged the majority status of Local 469 and requested recognition by the Em- ployer as the bargaining representative for its employees. There- after, on February 4, 1952, the Employer filed the instant petition. We must, however, decline to pursue this investigation of repre- sentatives any further. For the Board records show that no com- pliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act has ever been 1 Case No. 8-R-1846. 100 NLRB No. 35. 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD achieved by Local 469 2 or by United Construction Workers.3 As a result, the Board is presented with a situation in which the Employer seeks an election to resolve a question of representation where neither the incumbent union nor the rival which challenges the incumbent union's representative status is in compliance. To pursue this inves- tigation would obviously contravene the amended Act which provides, in essence, that a noncomplying union shall not be the beneficiary of any Board investigation.4 We must therefore dismiss the petition." Order Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, it is hereby ordered that the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it hereby is, dis- missed. 2It would appear from the position taken by Local 469 In this proceeding that it has no present intention of achieving compliance with the Act's filing requirements. 3 Because of its noncompliance status, United Construction Workers was denied inter- vention at the hearing. 4 Herman Lowenstein, Inc., 75 NLRB 377 ; Staten Island Cleaners, Inc., 93 NLRB 396. We accordingly find it unnecessary to pass upon any of the issues raised in this proceeding. AMERICAN COAT, APRON & LAUNDRY Co., INC. and LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION #88, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC- 4428. July 17,1952 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 Oscar Geltman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 1 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, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record'2 in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer,3 a New York corporation, is engaged in the laun- dry and linen supply business. It maintains its office, plant, and facilities in Schenectady, with a collection depot in South Glens Falls and a store in Albany, New York. During the year 1951, the Em- ployer purchased cotton goods, soaps, machinery, and equipment a The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds. For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 1, infra, this motion is denied. 2 After the close of the hearing , the Petitioner, by letter of May 14 , 1952, requested that the hearing be reopened to permit it to submit additional evidence . As the evidence sought to be adduced would not alter our determination herein, the request is denied. 8 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 100 NLRB No. 44.