Summer Williams Inc.

SUMNER WILLIAMS, INC. 349 tating against finding that the two companies constitute a single employer is the fact that Evans has ceased conducting its business . Imperial Outfitters, 107 NLRB 2. Accordingly, contrary to the contention of the General Counsel, I find that Evans and Pease are not a single employer within the meaning of Section' 2 (2) of the Act. Because Pease's operations alone do not meet the Board's jurisdictional stand- ards, I hereby recommend that the complaint in this case be dismissed. Sumner Williams, Inc. and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Case No. 1-IBC-5368. December 8, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Joseph C. Barry, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reason : Following a Board-conducted election, AFL-CIO was certified on October 25, 1957, as the exclusive representative for a production and maintenance unit at the Employer's plant at -Boston, Massa- chusetts..Contract. negotiations were begun between the Employer and the certified labor organization. After some months of unsuc- cessful negotiations, AFL--CIO and International-Union of Elec- trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, the.Petitioner here, agreed between themselves to have the Petitioner assume the repre- sentative status which the Board had granted to AFL-CIO. Some weeks later, the employees in the unit, at - a private- meeting, voted to accept IUE as their new representative. At.no time did AFL- CIO advise the Board that it wished to disclaim its certified repre- sentative status, nor did it request the Board's permission to transfer its certificate. The Employer protested against being asked to sign an agreement with any labor organization other than the certified ' Sumner Williams, Inc., 1-RC-5028, unpublished. 122 NLRB No. 57. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representative, and in the face of the Employer's refusal to sign an agreement with it, the Petitioner filed the instant petition on September 12, 1958, before the expiration of the certification year. The Employer contends that the petition was filed untimely under the Centr-O-Cast rule,2 and should be dismissed. The Petitioner con- tends, in effect, that the voluntary withdrawal of the certified repre- sentative from the contract negotiations constitutes a special circum- stance justifying an exception to the Centr-O-Cast rule. There is nothing in the record which reveals why the certified representative is unwilling to represent the employees or to sign an agreement with the Employer. Moreover, the private arrangement of the two Unions in switching the employees from one to the other, indicates a lack of regard for the establishment of a stable bargain- ing relationship which the Centr-O-Cast rule is designed to en- courage. We do not believe that the circumstances present here justify any exception to our well established rule that a petition filed during the first year of a certification must be dismissed.!, [The Board dismissed the petition.] 8 Centr-O-Cast & Engineering Company, 100 NLRB 1607 , holding that a Board certifica- tion will be treated as identifying the statutory bargaining representative with certainty and finality for a period of 1 year, and that, in order to protect the bargaining relation- ship from disturbance during that period , the Board will dismiss petitions filed before the end of the year. a Riverside Manufacturing Company, 119 NLRB 828; Rockwell Valves, Inc., 115 NLRB 236; Westa+ighouee Llectzic Vorportrtiori, 114 NLRB 1815. ,Cf...:WTOP, Inc., 114 NLRB 1236 and Remington Rand, Inc., 112 NLRB 1881. Belleville Employing Printers I and Belleville Printing Press- men, Union No. 113 affiliated with International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioper. Case No. 14-RC-3424. December 8, 1958 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 Walter A. Werner, 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 Belleville Advocate Printing Co. and Belleville News- Democrat, Inc., two of the Employers named in the petition, are in iConsisting of Belleville Advocate Printing Co.; Belleville , News- gmocrai, Inc.; ,Toseph- N. Buechler, d/b/a Buechler Printing Co.; Raymond L. Erwin, d/b/a Erwiti Print- lag's Co. )Bruce Meyer, "d/b/a. Bruce Meyer Printing ' Co.; and Arthur and Norman Semmeiroth, d/b/a Record Printing and Advertising Co. There is no formal organization known as Belleville Employing Printers. 122 NLRB No. 58.