California Cornice Steel and Supply Corp.

CALIFORNIA CORNICE STEEL AND SUPPLY CORP. 787 CALIFORNIA CORNICE STEEL AND SUPPLY CORP. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR- CRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), Petitioner. Case Nd. 21 -RC-2930. May 5, 1953 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 Floyd C. Brewer, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. Locals 548, 108, and 509 assert as bars certain contracts with the Employer. The petition herein was filed January 22, 1953. Local 548's contract was executed after that date, on February 17, 1953; hence it is clearly no bar. Local 108's contract was automatically renewable after that date, on April 1, 1953. As this automatic renewal date has already passed, neither the remaining nor the renewed term of this contract can be a bar.' The automatic renewal date of Local 509's contract will not arrive until June 1, 1953. However, the record establishes that, regardless of what unit the contract may 'Special appearances were made by Locals No. 108 and No. 548 , Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL, and Local No. 433 and Shopmen's Local No . 509, Inter- national Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL, to register their objection to the hearing officer 's refusal to postpone the hearing until February 26. On February 6, 1953, their attorney, one Nissen, had informed the Regional Office of the Board that he would not be available to participate in a hearing until March 8. Because such a delay was of unreasonable length, the Regional Director had set the hearing for February 19, and these AFL unions were duly notified under date of February 6. On February 16 Nissen wrote the Regional office , this time asking that the hearing be postponed from February 19 until February 26. The Regional Director granted this request. However, on February 17, Local 548 entered into a union-shop contract with the Employer for a unit generally corresponding to that sought by the Petitioner herein . Thereupon, the Regional Director rescinded the postponement; and the hearing was held on February 19 as originally scheduled . At the hearing the AFL unions twice again requested a postponement to February 26, which the hearing officer denied . After the close of the hearing , the AFL unions filed with the Board a telegram appealing from these rulings . As the hearing was already at an end, this appeal amounted to a motion to reopen the record and hold a supple- mental hearing. We hereby deny this motion. We do not believe that the hearing officer's refusal of a postponement was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case. The AFL unions knew as early as February 7 that a hearing was to be held on a day when Nissen would be unavailable, and they had ample opportunity to secure other counsel. Their failure to make such arrangements cannot be attributed to the Regional Director 's action on February 17 or 18 in first granting and then rescinding a postponement of the hearing. =Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 94 NLRB 197. 104 NLRB No. 86. 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purport to cover, Local 509 has never in fact represented any of the employees now sought by the Petitioner. Accordingly, its contract cannot be a bar.' We therefore find that a 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production workers in the Employer's "manufacturing division," which is devoted to the production of aircraft parts and assemblies. It would include the plant clericals whose work pertains exclusively to that division. To these it would add all the Employer's maintenance employees although they service the entire plant, not just the "manufacturing division." It states that it seeks a residual unit comprising all the otherwise unrepresented production and maintenance employees. The Employer and the AFL unions contend that such a unit is inappropriate. The Employer's plant is located in Los Angeles, California. In addition to the aircraft work mentioned above, it prefabri- cates steel service-station and mill buildings. This prefabri- cation work is done in its "fabricating division," which directly adjoins its "manufacturing division." The production workers in this "fabricating division" have for some time been represented by AFL unions: All sheet metal workers by Local 108 and all ironworkers by Local 509. The Employer is also engaged in erecting buildings on the premises of its customers. The employees performing this work are also represented by AFL unions: The sheet metal workers by Local 108 and the ironworkers by Local 433. The Employer's truckdrivers, their helpers, and the warehousemen who load and unload trucks have for some time been covered by an oral contract with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, AFL. None of the plant clerical, maintenance, or manufacturing division employees had been represented by any union until the execution of the February 17, 1953, contract with Local 548, after the petition was filed. What the Petitioner appears to be seeking is a unit of all production and maintenance employees not otherwise repre- sented. Such a unit is appropriate because of its residual nature, quite apart from its possible appropriateness on other grounds.' Moreover, it is substantially the same as the unit covered by the February 17, 1953, contract between the Employer and Local 548. However, the Petitioner apparently would omit a few unrepresented production and maintenance employees who properly belong in such a residual unit, namely those plant clericals whose work pertains in whole or in part to the "fabricating division." We will add these to the unit. 9 Sucesores De Abarca, Inc., 101 NLRB 523. 4Marion Manufacturing Co., 101 NLRB 256; Central Mercedita, Inc., 100 NLRB 1168; Houston Lighting & Power Co., 100 NLRB 76; Jacobs Manufacturing Co., 99 NLRB 482. KNOX CORPORATION 789 Accordingly we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production employees in the manufacturing division, and all maintenance and plant clerical employees, at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, plant, including employees whomanu- facture magnesium beams for aircraft, shipping and receiving clerks at all three warehouses, storeroom clerks in both storerooms, and material control employees,5 but excluding outside employees, employees in the fabricating division, truckdrivers and helpers, warehousemen who load and unload trucks, office clerical employees,6 professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 Interstate Machinery Co., 66 NLRB 1336; Heintz Manufacturing Co., 100 NLRB 1521. 6As the Petitioner does not regard as plant clericals the employees serving as stenog- raphers to foremen and Government inspectors, and as no other position is taken with respect to these employees by the Employer or the AFL unions,, we exclude them as office clerical employees. KNOX CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2165. May 5, 1953 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 Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., 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, Murdock, and Styles ]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 1 The Employer's contention that the Petitioner is not a labor organization has no merit. The record shows that the Petitioner has officers and a constitution and is organized for purposes of collective bargaining with employers concerning the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 96 NLRB 1052. 104 NLRB No. 96. 283230 0 - 54 - 51