Best Art Products, Inc.

BEST ART PRODUCTS, INC. 81 BEST ART PRODUCTS , INC. and AMALGAMATED WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 130, DOLL & TOY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER and LOCAL 227, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, AFL . Case No. 2-RC-6896. January 5,1955 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Aaron Weissman, hearing of- ficer. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Employer is a New York corporation, engaged in the business of manufacturing crayons, at its plant in Brooklyn, New York. The Employer was approached in February 1954 by the Intervenor, who presented authorization cards, and contract negotiations began. A contract was prepared in March 1954 between the Employer and the Intervenor. The Petitioner commenced its organizational efforts in April 1954. The Petitioner filed a petition (Case No. 2-RC-6792) on May 3, 1954, seeking to represent the Employer's employees. On May 18, 1954, the Petitioner withdrew that petition on the Employer's promise to bargain. The Petitioner and the Employer had a confer- ence and discussed the terms of a contract. Approximately May 25, 1954, the Petitioner submitted to the Employer a form contract. The Employer and the Petitioner met at the beginning of June 1954 and discussed the changes proposed by the Employer. The contract with the proposed changes was typed up and sent to the Employer for his further perusal, which it received approximately June 7 or 8, 1954. There was testimony at the hearing that a meeting was held at the Petitioner's office on June 11, 1954, attended by 3 representatives of the Employer, 3 representatives of the Intervenor, and the Petitioner's president. Two witnesses for the Employer and 2 witnesses for the Intervenor testified in substantial accord that at that meeting the Pe- titioner's president stated, "I am stepping out of the picture, go ahead and sign with Local 227 and make sure you sign this afternoon." Al- though the Petitioner's president denied making this statement, the 111 NLRB No. 8. 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD weight of the evidence tends to support the conclusion that this state- ment was made. It is clear from the record that the Petitioner filed a petition on May 3, 1954, after an initial request for recognition and bargaining, and withdrew that petition on May 18, 1954. The present petition was filed on June 14, 1954, and hence more than 10 days after the Peti- tioner's initial request for recognition and bargaining. It was, there- fore, untimely under the General Electric X-Ray 1 rule with respect to the contract executed on June 11, 1954. The Board has on occa- sion suspended the operation of this rule where extenuating circum- stances were present.2 It may be asserted that in view of the Em- ployer's promise to bargain without an election among its employees, extenuating circumstances exist which justify obviating the applica- tion of the 10-day rule. While the Board has normally regarded a factual situation such as this sufficient to come within the exception, the evidence at the hearing in the present case indicated that the Pe- titioner by its conduct encouraged the Employer and the Intervenor to execute the very contract it now contends should not bar its petition. Under the circumstances, particularly in view of what transpired at the meeting of the representatives of the parties on June 11, 1954, we find no warrant for suspending the operation of the General Elec- tric X-Ray rule. Indeed, it is precisely situations such as the present one that illustrate the salutary effect of the rule requiring petitions to be filed within 10 days after the initial request for recognition and bargaining. Failure to conform to this well-established Board re- quirement frequently lead, as it did here, to factual disputes that would otherwise not have occurred. Accordingly, we find that the contract of June 11, 1954, is a bar to the petition filed June 14, 1954, and therefore precludes a present de- termination of representatives. We shall therefore dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 1 67 NLRB 997. 2 Arrow Candy Co., 100 NLRB 573; Chicago Bradge & Iron Company, 88 NLRB 402. BONNAZ, HAND EMBROIDERERS , TUCKERS, STITCHERS , PLEATERS UNION, LOCAL 66, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL; ZACHERY L. FREEDMAN AND GEORGE TRIESTMAN, AGENTS and GEMSCO, INC. Case No. 00-CC-293. January 6,1955 Decision and Order On August 27, 1954, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- 111 NLRB No.11.