Independent Manufacturing Co.

INDEPENDENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 937 Robert E. Smith, Henry J. Smith, Nellie Quinn, Ann Smith, M. J. Cain, E. M. McEvoy, M. E. Smith and M. M. Burns,, co-partners d/b/a Independent Manufacturing Company and Local 195, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2691. August 24, 1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Herbert B. Mintz, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Intervenor, Local 13090, "District 50, United Mine Workers of America,' urges as a bar to this proceeding the current union-shop contract of its newly affiliated local. This contract, between the Employer and Local 128, International Chemical Workers Emergency Reorganizing Committee (ERC), was executed on February 4, 1955, effective until February 8, 1956. On April 5, 1955, Local 128, ERC, voted to affiliate with District 50, UMW, and, the group was assigned local number 13090. Local 128, ERC, was in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act at the time the union-security contract was executed. However, the Intervenor has never been in compliance. The Board has applied the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3), as amended, to its contract-bar rules, and interpreted the statute as re- quiring that in order for a union-shop contract to bar a'representation proceeding the contracting union must have been in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act at the time the agreement was made; or have received from the Board a notice of compliance within the preceding 12 nionths.a Consistent with this policy, we now find that a union which obtains a union-shop contract by assignment through a newly affiliated local must meet, at the time of affiliation, the same compliance requirements as the contracting union is required to meet. To hold otherwise would permit noncomplying unions to assume, through affiliation, union-shop ' At the close of the hearing the Petitioner and Employer made a motion that the inter- vention be denied because of certain circumstances including Intervenor's failure to be present during the last day of the hearing. This motion was referred to the Board and is hereby denied. ' See, Ward Baking Company, 101 NLRB 419-420. See also Polk Brothers Central Ap- pltance and Furniture Company, 105 NLRB 251, 252-253, Dichello, Inc., 107 NLRB 1642, 1643-1644, Hughes-Verttn Lime Company, 104 NLRB 185 ; Arvin Industries, Inc, 104 NLRB 300 , Kind and Knox Gelatin Company, 104 NLRB 1034, 1036. 113 NLRB No. 106. 938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ,BOARD contracts of complying unions and thereby obtain therefrom benefits which the statute would not otherwise permit. Since the Intervenor does not meet the requirements here established, we find that the union- shop contract does not bar the petition herein.3 Accordingly we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning 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 following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant of the Em- ployer, excluding truckdrivers, office employees, plant guards, garage mechanics, garage mechanic helpers, research technicians, and all supervisors as defined in the Act 4 ;[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 8In view of our disposition of the contract-bar issue, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the merit of the various other contentions made by the parties with respect to that issue. ' This unit is the historical bargaining unit and is in accord with the stipulation of the parties. Better Monkey Grip Company and Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-742. August ,5,1955 DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO REGIONAL DIRECTOR On August 27, 1954, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent also filed a motion to reopen the record, to receive additional testimony. On December 31, 1954, the Board issued an Order 1 granting the motion, remanding the case to the Trial Examiner for further hearing, and directing that a Supplemental Intermediate Report be prepared. Pursuant to this Order, a further hearing was held before the same Trial Examiner; and, on February 9, 1955, he issued his Supplemental Intermediate 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 113-NLRB No. 110.