Stewart-Warner Corp.

608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In accordance with our usual custom, we instruct the Regional Director to hold the election directed herein on a day to be selected by him during or near the full-time peak employment period in the next tomato processing season, eligibility to be determined by employ- ment during the payroll period immediately preceding the notice of election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] STEWART-WARNER CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC- TRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2667. August 13,195? 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 Irving M. Friedman, 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-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case,2 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.8 1 At the hearing, IBEW moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that IBEW was improperly denied certification in an earlier proceeding, Case No. 13-RM-53 . The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board . For the reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 3, the motion is denied. a IBEW requested at the hearing that the Board take judicial notice of the proceedings in Case No. 13-RM-53. The request is granted. We also take judicial notice of the re- lated unfair labor practice case (94 NLRB 607). See The Baldwin Locomotive Works, 89 NLRB 403. a The hearing officer referred to the Board the UE motion to intervene. IBEW contends that UE is fronting for the latter's noncomplying Local 1154 , which previously represented the employees involved. However, UE counsel stated at the hearing that the local in ques- tion had ceased to function and that its charter had been rescinded by action of UE's general executive board in March 1951. After the close of the hearing, UE submitted affidavits in support thereof. IBEW submitted no evidence in support of its allegation of fronting. Under all the circumstances, we find that Local 1154 is no longer a func. tioning labor organization, and that UE may intervene. Cf. Standard Steel Spring Com- pany, 90 NLRB 1805 ; Electric Products Company, 89 NLRB 21& After the close of the hearing, District No. 8, International Association of Machinists, also moved to intervene . As there has been no objection from any party , and as we are administratively satisfied that this organization has demonstrated a sufficient showing of interest among the employees as of the date of the hearing, we grant the motion and shall accord it a place on the ballot. 100 NLRB No. 97. STEWART-WARNER CORPORATION 609- 3. The question concerning representation : IBEW contends that its current contract with the Employer is a bar to this proceeding. On March 16,1950, IBEW and the Employer entered into a contract effective to June 1, 1952.4 Thereafter, on Sep- tember 28, 1950, a supplement was executed, which, inter alia, ex- tended the termination date of the contract to October 4, 1953. The petition herein was filed on April 10, 1952. Apart from other con- siderations, we find that, as the petition was filed before the expira- tion date of the original contract, that contract is not a bar. The supplemental contract is not a bar because it is a premature extension of the March contract, the original term of which has expired 5 IBEW also contends that (1) the petition should be dismissed because the Board erred in refusing to certify it in another case in- volving the employees here concerned (Case No. 13-RM-53), and (2) the present proceeding should be held in abeyance pending adjudica- tion of a complaint which it has filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel certification in that case. We find no merit in these contentions. IBEW has advanced no per- suasive reason for altering the prior determination in Case No. 13- RM-53, and the pendency of the district court action affords no ground for abating this proceeding.6 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 7 All production, maintenance, and warehouse employees of the Em- ployer's north and south plants located at 1826 Diversey Parkway, the Kostner Avenue plant, and the Rockola plant near Kedzie and Chicago Avenue, all in Chicago, Illinois, excluding office and clerical employees, administrative, sales, and service employees, timekeepers, scalemen, time-study employees, engineering and laboratory em- ployees, blueprint department employees, cafeteria employees, hospi- tal employees, watchmen, guards and police, outside truck drivers, firemen, operating engineers, electricians in the maintenance depart- ment, tool designers and draftsmen, apprentices and other employees in departments 325-die room, 326-tool room, and 327-machine repair (as specified by the National Labor Relations Board on Novem- * while the expiration date of this contract is not set forth in the copy submitted in evidence in this case, it is contained in the copy submitted in the complaint case (94 NLRB 607), of which, as already noted, we take judicial notice. See footnote 2, supra. 5 Union Steel Castings Division of Blaw-Knox Company, 88 NLRB 209. 6Cf. Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast, 32 NLRB 668; Radio Corporation of America, 89 NLRB 699. 7 The parties stipulated that this unit is appropriate. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ber 25, 1949), supervisors as defined in the Act, and Stewart Die Casting Division employees. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MORTON SALT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION2 AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-766. August 13,1952 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 Charles A. Kyle, 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-member 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. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The appropriate unit : The Employer owns and operates a salt mine and processing plant, together with a chemical plant, at Weeks Island, Louisiana., These operations are conducted in an area approximately 1 mile in diameter. Within the area, 75 percent of the employees reside with their families, and the Employer provides and maintains their homes, schools, churches, stores, and recreation centers. A third operation, a village services division, is charged with maintenance of the roads, the hous- ing, lighting, and other living facilities in the area. There are approximately 221 employees in the salt operation, 122 in the chemical operation, and 15 in the village operation. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production and mainte- nance employees in the salt and village operations, excluding those in ' Since September 30, 1948 , the Employer has been sole owner of all the operations on Weeks Island. Prior to that date , the salt operation was conducted by Myles Salt Com- pany, Ltd., and the chemical operation by Bay Chemical Company . From 1925 to 1948, both Myles and Bay , though separate corporations , were owned by similar interests. In 1948, the Employer acquired all the assets of Myles and Bay, and the latter corporations were dissolved. The name, Bay Chemical Company, however, is still retained in referring to the chemical operation. 100 NLRB No. 99