Mervin Wave Clip Co., Inc.

`MERVIN-WAV1 "CLIP'COMPANY,f NC. 157 from nonprofessionals, and as there has been no bargaining for eilhu,i group -during the past 3 year's, we find; tinder- the citcu lstances of this. case, -that there is sufficient divergence between; the interests of the -draftsmen and the other technical employees, on the one -hand, and the professional employees, on the other, to warrant- establishing a separate unit of the former. - We- therefore find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit -appropriate- for the pur- 'poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) .,of the Act : .. - All, class A draft'men, ,class ,B draftsmen,, drafting, squad_ leaders, billers;'blueprinter-s, drafting room trainees, employed in the drafting 'room of the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, including regu= lar part-time employees, but excluding class' A engineers, class B-engi- neers, engineering trainees, office employees, salesmen, shop employees, and supervisors 'as defined in the Act .4 [Text- of. Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ' -A The unit description conforms +snbstantially to that - of the nonprofessional voting group designated by the Board" in the-prior- case. , Mervin Wave Clip Company, Inc. and ,Retail, Wholesale & De- partnient Store Union,,C. I. ®., Petitioner. Case, No. 3RC 1565. September-22,1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition -duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor -Relations Act, a hearing- was held before William J. Cavers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby afliirnied. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. - - The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- -ployees of the Employer. - " Upon the entire record in this case, the Board -finds that no question of representation 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 for the following reasons: - ' The petition. in this. case was filed June 24, 1955 . Petitioner on the same day mailed to the Employer a letter requesting recognition for a production and maintenance unit. Earlier, in April or May 1955, the Intervenor, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local 13736 , requested recognition of the 114 NLRB No. 39. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD Employer for that unit. Based upon its claim, an election was held on June 2 by the New York State Mediation Board, in which election the Intervenor was successful. Out of 34 votes cast, the tally was 18 for the Union. The tally sheet indicates that 47 employees were eligible to vote. After the election the Employer and the Intervenor entered into contract negotiations, which were based upon an existing contract be- tween the Intervenor and the Employer's parent corporation covering employees of another plant. On June 22, this, "form" contract, with ink changes, was agreed to by both parties and initialed by the Em- ployer. On June 23, it was typed in full and signed by the Em- ployer's president and by its assistant secretary. Two witnesses for the Intervenor, the District 50 regional director and its represent- ative, testified at the hearing that they signed the typewritten contract that same afternoon, the 23d, the representative having first obtained employee ratification at an informal meeting of employees held in back of the plant. The signatures of the District 50 president in Wash- ington, and of the two employee signers, were obtained thereafter, the exact date not being clear. Testimony by- the Employer's president varied to the extent that he indicated that the Intervenor's represent- ative waited until June 29 to pick up the contract for signature; but he also testified that on the 23d the Intervenor's representative de- livered to him a letter concerning dues checkoff and enclosing 27 signed checkoff authorization cards. Both the Employer and the Intervenor urge the contract as a bar to this petition. In this case it appears that only the ministerial act by the Intervenor of procuring all, or part, of the signatures on its behalf remained to be done when the petition was filed. The record shows that the con- tract, which was the direct result of an election held under State auspices, had been signed by the Employer, ratified by the employees, and put into effect by the submission of dues checkoff cards by the Intervenor. In these circumstances we do not believe that stability in labor relations will be served by a redetermination -of bargaining representatives at this time.' Accordingly, we find that the current contract of the Employer and Intervenor is a bar to this proceeding and we shall therefore dismiss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] ACTING CHAIRMAN RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 3 See Natona Mills, Inc., 112 NLRB 236.