Peirce & Co.

PEIRCE & COMPANY 445 of it find Colgate to be an Employer of any of the radio talent sought by the Petitioner. Nor do we, on this record, find Publicidad Astra or The Gillette Co. to be employers of the radio talent here sought. The Petitioner made no contention to the contrary at the reopened hearing. The sum total of the testimony at both hearings indicates that The Gillette Co. sponsored a United States professional baseball rebroadcast in 1953 using a local announcer, but that no specific arrangements had been made to repeat the program in 1954. As to Astra, the record deals only with its Gillette client as outlined, and with its arrangement with Colgate that has been canceled. Likewise, on this record, we do not find that Edmundo Rivera Alvarez is an Employer, within the meaning of the Act, of the radio talent here sought based upon the apparent delegation of hiring and di- rectional authority to him by Radio Station WKAQ. Moreover, so far as this record indicates, Alvarez performs no functions in con- nection with other radio programs which in any way indicate he is an Employer within the meaning of the Act. We shall dismiss the petition as to Colgate, Astra, Gillette, and Rivera Alvarez. Accordingly we find that all employees of Radio Stations WKAQ and WNEL, respectively, working on radio programs, including those on Colgate-Palmolive Company sponsored programs in the San Juan, Puerto Rico, area, as follows : actors, actresses, scriptwriters, an- nouncers, sound effects men, disk jockeys, directors, masters of cere- monies, narrators, commentators, controlmen, and recorders, but ex- cluding all other employees, office clerical employees and executive, ad- ministrative, and professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. [The Board dismissed the petition as to Colgate-Palmolive Com- pany, Publicidad Astra, The Gillette Co., and Edmundo Rivera Alvarez.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] PEIRCE & COMPANY and LOCAL 576, FURNITURE WORKERS, UPHOL- STERERS AND WOODWORKERS UNION, INDEPENDENT. Case No. 21- CA-1525. October 22, 1954 Decision and Order Pursuant to a motion filed by the General Counsel on May 13, 1954, to which no objection was taken, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle, 110 NLRB No. 73. 446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD issued, on June 15, 1954, an Order Dismissing Complaint in the above- entitled proceeding on the ground that the charging party therein, Local 576, Furniture Workers, Upholsterers and Woodworkers Union, Independent, herein called Local 576, Independent, was not in compli- ance with Section 9 (h) of the Act on March 16, 1953, the date the complaint herein was issued. Thereafter, Local 576, Independent, filed with the Board a request for review of the Trial Examiner's dis- missal order. Pursuant to such request, the Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's ruling, and for the reasons hereafter set forth, affirms the same. As appears more fully from the Trial Examiner's Order Dismiss- ing Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto, both the General Counsel's May 13,1954, motion for dismissal, and the Trial Examiner's order granting such motion, were predicated upon the Board's ad- ministrative determination dated January 14, 1954, that : (1) Because incumbents of certain officer positions in Local 576, Independent, had failed to file non-Communist affidavits at any time before the latter part of 1953, Local 576, Independent, had not theretofore complied with Sec- tion 9 (h) of the Act; and (2) accordingly, any letters of compliance issued by the Regional Director to Local 576, Independent, during the period covered by the Board's administrative determination were "null and void and without effect." The request for review herein filed by Local 576, Independent, seeks, in effect, a reconsideration by the Board of its January 14, 1954, ad- ministrative determination of the Union's compliance status. Such request however, raises no issues not previously considered by the Board in connection with its January 14, 1954, determination. It is therefore denied. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that on the basis of aforesaid administrative determination by the Board, Local 576, Independent, was not in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act on the date the complaint herein was issued, and that such complaint should therefore be dismissed.' [The Board dismissed the complaint.] MEMBER MuRDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. IN. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co., 341 U. S. 322. Order Dismissing Complaint On a charge filed October 13, and amended October 17, 1952, by Local 576, Furniture Workers, Upholsterers and Woodworkers Union, Independent, the Regional Director, Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued a complaint on March 16, 1953, alleging that Respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain in good faith with the Charging Union from and after October 3, 1952, thereby pro- longing a strike of its employees. The complaint as amended and particularized NASH-KELVINATOR CORPORATION 447 at the hearing further alleged discrimination with request to certain employees, and various acts of interference with, and restraint of, employees. On May 5, 1953, hearing on the complaint was opened, and thereafter continued on various dates by the Trial Examiner, duly designated to conduct the proceeding. On July 17, 1953, counsel for the General Counsel requested the Board's permis- sion to appeal from certain rulings made in the course of hearing by the Trial Examiner. To allow counsel time to prepare arguments and briefs on the subject of the interim appeal, the hearing was recessed, to be resumed upon order of the Trial Examiner, upon the motion of any party. On January 14, 1954, the Board held in Compliance Status of Furniture Workers, Upholsterers and Woodworkers Union, Local 576, Independent, 107 NLRB 872, Administrative Determination of Compliance Status, that the Charging Union herein "was not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act during the period when the incumbents of [certain] positions did not have on file the affidavits therein pre- scribed." The Board also found that "all incumbents of these positions failed to file non-Communistic affidavits until the latter part of 1953." Consequently, on March 16, 1953, the date of issuance of the complaint herein, the Charging Union was not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act, and the issuance of the said complaint was invalid under Section 9 (h) of the Act. On May 13, 1954, the General Counsel addressed a formal request to the Board, asking that he be permitted to withdraw the aforementioned request for permission to appeal from Trial Examiner's ruling and argument in support thereof, and that the proceeding be remanded to the Trial Examiner for the purpose of enabling the Trial Examiner to rule on a motion of the General. Counsel to dismiss the complaint herein because of the noncompliance of the Charging Union, as set forth above. On the same date, the General Counsel filed with the undersigned the above-mentioned motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 24, 1954, the Board by order permitted the General Counsel to withdraw the "Request for Permission to Appeal from Trial Examiner's Rulings and Argument in Support Thereof." Wherefore, upon the entire record herein, the Board's administrative determina- tion of compliance status of the above-named Union, dated January 14, 1954, and upon motion of the General Counsel, no party opposing, IT IS ORDERED that the complaint herein, issued on March 16, 1953, as finally amended, be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. NASH-KELVINATOR CORPORATION , BODY PLANT #6 and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS , LOCAL 125, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 13-RC-3833. October 00, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William F. Trent, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Petitioner seeks to sever a powerhouse unit from the produc- tion and maintenance unit currently represented by the Intervenor, 110 NLRB No. 62.