F. H. Soldwedel Co.

F. H. SOLDWEDEL COMPANY 225 eluded within the Steelworkers unit. The Engineers states that the A-frame is a hoisting mechanism mounted on a truck just as the boom crane was mounted on the railway equipment. The Steelworkers maintains that neither the forklift nor the A-frame truck will replace any job now under the jurisdiction of the Engineers. The watertender is a new job. The Engineers claims that the duties of this employee are the same normally performed by a fireman and are similar to classifications included in its contract. The Steelworkers contends that the waste heat boilers at which the watertender will work are part of the open hearth department and are in line of promo- tion progression for employees represented by it. In view of the above I would direct a hearing and then determine on the basis of the facts evolved whether the three classifications in dispute should be included in the unit represented by the Steelworkers. F. H. Soldwedel Company and Ice Cream and Milk Drivers & Dairy Workers of Pekin, Local No. 53, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-4276. July 18, 1955 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 Julius N. Draznin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' , The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion by the Petitioner that Local 462, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers, AFL, be denied the status of an Intervenor herein . In its brief filed with the Board , the Peti- tioner contends that Local 462 should be denied a place on the ballot in any election directed herein because ( 1) it did not file any written or oral motion to intervene in this case in the manner prescribed by the Board 's Rules; and (?) it has not sufficient interest in the representation of the employees involved. While no formal written or oral motion to intervene was made by Local 462 , and it, in fact, did not appear at the hearing, although duly notified , the record shows that Local 462 has otherwise adequately manifested its desire to intervene. Thus, before the instant hearing, it entered into a consent -election agreement from which it later withdrew , and the hearing was subsequently postponed by the Regional Director on one occasion at the request of Local 462 Moreover, after the hearing, Local 462 filed a motion with the Board seeking reopening of the hearing "to enable Local 462 to protect its interests as a party to a current collective bargaining con- tract" with the Employer. With regard to the further question of Local 462's right to intervene, the record indicates that Local 462 relies on its alleged status as a party to the current contract covering the employees involved. This contract, which expired on July 1, 1955, was executed on October 15, 1954, by the Employer and Teamsters ' Local 685. About February 1, 1955, Teamsters ' International transferred jurisdiction over the instant em- ployees from Local 685 to Local 462. In its motion filed with the Board , Local 462 asserts that as a result of this transfer or "merger" It succeeded to all the rights of Local 685 under its contract. Without determining the validity of this contention, we shall, in view of Local 462 's alleged contractual interest and colorable claim to representation, deny Petitioner's motion, accord Local 462 the status of an intervenor herein, and place its name on the ballot. Pacific Tankers, Inc ., 81 NLRB 325, 326. 113 NLRB No. 26. 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. 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. In accord with the agreement of the parties, we find that the fol- lowing employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, including retail and wholesale milk driver salesmen, ice cream driver salesmen, all other truckdrivers, and working foremen, but excluding watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Counsel for Local 462 filed with the Board a motion to reopen hearing, in which he alleges that he was unable to appear at the hearing on May 26, 1955, because of prior commitments , and that his (second ) request for a continuance was improperly denied by the Regional Director. This motion is opposed by the Employer and the Petitioner The granting of requests for continuance is within the discretion of the Regional Director. As the petition herein was filed on March 18, 1955, and hearing thereon was twice resched- uled, the first time, because the parties entered into a consent-election agreement (from which Local 462 later withdrew), and the second time, because of Local 462's request for a continuance, and as counsel for Local 462 had ample notice in advance of the May 26 hearing that his request for a further postponement was being denied, we are satisfied that these was no abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Director Moreover, we do not believe that any useful puipose will be served by reopening the heat mg to receive the evidence which Local 462 proposes to adduce Such evidence relates to (1) alleged unlawful conduct of the Employer in withholding from Local 462 dues checked off under the current contract, and (2) alleged improper campaign propaganda by the Petitioner in connection therewith. These are matters which may properly be raised by Local 462 as objections to the election, insofar as they may affect the results of the election See Monroe Calculating Machine Co , 109 NLRB 314 Local 462's motion to reopen is accord- ingly denied. The Stubnitz Greene Spring Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- i rent Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2677. July 00, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Sandberg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 'Local Union #13366, District 50, United Mine workers of America, hereinafter re- ferred to as the Intervenor, requests the Board to dismiss the instant petition on grounds of contract bar For reasons stated in paragraph 3, infra, this motion is hereby granted. 113 NLRB No. 28.