Timm Industries, Inc.

TIMM INDUSTRIES, INC. 359 Consequently, I conclude and find that the Lima Electric Products Shop Branch of the parent national, namely the Metal and Machinery Workers of America, Ind , was and is a labor organization required to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the amended Act. U Since, as found above, the said Lima Electric Products Shop Branch of the parent national union has failed to comply with the above -mentioned filing requirements of the amended Act, I conclude and find that the complaint herein improvidently issued. Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Metal and Machinery Workers of America, Ind., and Lima Electric Products Shop Branch, of Metal and Machinery Workers of America, Ind , are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The failure of the Lima Electric Products Shop Branch. of Metal and Machinery Workers of America, Ind., to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the amended Act precludes the issuance of a lawful complaint [Recommendations omitted from publication. ] u Cf. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 81 NLRB 295; Sunbeam Corporation, 98 NLRB 525; and Wells Manufacturing Corporation, 85 NLRB 23 TIMM INDUSTRIES, INC. and ONITA BRIGGS, Petitioner TIMM INDUSTRIES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 63, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos . 21-RD-175 and 21-RC-2948. April 2-4, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing on the consolidated cases t was held before Leo Fischer, 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 these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce withinthe meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation 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: In Case No. 21-RD-175, Onita Briggs filed a petition to de- certify the Intervenor as collective-bargaining agent for a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's I International Association of Machinists, Lodge 758, intervened in the consolidated proceeding. 104 NLRB No. 53. 3 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Los Angeles, California, aircraft parts, window sash, and vending machine manufacturing plant.2 The Intervenor moved to dismiss the decertification petition on the ground that Pe- titioner Briggs is "fronting" for District 50, United Mine Workers of America, a labor organization not in compliance with the Act. Briggs, who was not represented by counsel at the hearing, testified that she was not acting for the UMW and that she re- ceived no information or guidance regarding her petition from any source other than the Board. At the time Briggs initiated these proceedings, two UMW representatives, Courtney and Pasternick, were attempting to organize the employees for the UMW--passing out campaign circulars and authorization cards, holding meetings, and calling at employees' homes to ask them to solicit signatures on both decertification and UMW authorization cards. Briggs testified that she knew Courtney before she filed her petition and that he called at her house once; that she had met Pasternick at a UMW meeting, and had had other meetings with him. According to the uncontradicted testimony of one of the employees at the meeting held on February 12, 1953, at which Briggs stated she met Pasternick, Pasternick was the principal speaker. After pointing out the advantages of switching from the Intervenor to the UMW, "he said that in the first place it would be necessary for the election to decertify the Machinists . . . and after this step was over with, that they would take the cards which they had had signed by the employees of Timm's and present them to the company and request the company to recognize them as the bargaining agent for the employees of Timm Industries." Briggs also testified that she did not distribute among the employees the decertification -authorization cards which she later presented, with signatures, to the Board. These cards, she admitted, were distributed by UMW representatives to the employees who signed them and returned them',to her. In fact, she was unable at the hearing to distinguish clearly between a UMW authorization card, which she identified as "a decertifi- cation," and a decertification-authorization card, which she identified as "the United Mine Workers card which they put out at the gate down there, and the people signed it." In these circumstances we find that Onita Briggs was in fact acting on behalf of District 50, United Mine Workers of Ameri- ca, -a non complying labor organization, and we shall grant the motion to dismiss the petition in Case No. 21-RD-175.3 In Case No. 21-RC-2948, Petitioner Operating Engineers re- quests the severance of a unit of all employees in the main- tenance department, who have been included in the certified contract unit represented by the Intervenor.4 The Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground 2 The Intervenor was certified by the Board as representative of the production and main- tenance unit February 3, 1947 (Case No. 21-R-3738). 3See Knife River Coal Mining Company, 91 NLRB 176; cf Consolidated Rendering Co., 91 NLRB 1257. 4See footnote 2, supra. MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION 361 of inappropriate unit. These employees are classified by the Employer as three maintenance mechanics and described by their supervisor as welder, licensed electrician, and electri- cian-leadman; and a stationery engineer, described as licensed boiler operator. All work out of a separate building which is equipped with maintenance tools and repair supplies. While their primary duty is general repair and maintenance, they average 25 percent or more of their time in production work, and substitute for absent guard-janitors. None has served an apprenticeship. We find that this maintenance group does not constitute a homogeneous craft group, and in view of the bar- gaining history may not appropriately be severed from the broader unit.' We shall therefore dismiss the petition in Case No. 2l-RC-2948. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 21-RD-175 and 21-RC-2948 be, and they hereby are, dis- missed. 5 The Nestle Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 1250. MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L., Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-2788. April 24, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION OF RUNOFF ELECTION On February 24, 1953, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election by the Board,' as amended on February 12, 1953,2 an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region among the employees in the stipulated unit at the Employer's plant in Whittier, Cali- fornia. At the close of the election, a tally of ballots was issued and duly, served upon the parties concerned. The tally revealed that, of approximately 250 eligible voters 224 cast ballots, of which 66 ballots were for the Petitioner, 88 ballots were for the Intervenor, and 70 ballots were against the participating labor organizations. There were no challenged and no void ballots. On March 2, 1953, the Petitioner timely filed with the Re- gional Director a letter in which it stated: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner in the above-entitled matter, the International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, A.F. of L., hereby files its Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of Election. 1 21-RC-2788, dated December 23, 1952, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 2 The Board amended its Decision on this date to permit the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Intervenor, to intervene in this proceeding and appear on the ballot. 104 NLRB No. 63.