Personal Products Corp.

PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 563 and the chemical production departments, the biologic testing and the quality control testing departments, the shipping and ware- housing employees, the employees in the veterinary pathology, the organic chemistry, the biochemistry, the helminthology, the micro- biology, and the protozoology departments,5 but excluding all office clerical employees, technical employees, agricultural laborers, pro- fessional employees,6 watchmen, guards, and all supervisors7 as de- fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 The parties agreed that the laboratory assistants should be excluded. 6 The parties stipulated that all veterinarians, chemists, bacteriologists, helmintholo- gists, protozoologists , parasitologists , biochemists , and chemical engineers are professional employees. 7 The parties agreed that Stanley O 'Doud, a laboratory assistant , and Gallus Heit are supervisors. Personal Products Corporation and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5738. Decem- ber 18, 1958 ORDER PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION WITH PREJUDICE On April 16, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in this case, and by letter dated November 4, 1958, the Petitioner requested leave to withdraw its petition with prejudice. The request to withdraw does not state a reason, but the Board assumes that the request is pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (42 LRRM 2605). The Board was not a party to the litigation, which was initiated by the Intervenor in this case. The Board has determined to grant the request to withdraw the petition in this proceeding but desires to make it clear that in permitting withdrawal, the Board does not acquiesce in the decision of the United States District Court or the Court of Appeals. In future litigation of this character where a party to a National Labor Relations Board proceeding seeks to restrain another party from appearing on a ballot as directed by the Board, the Board will expect to be made a party to the court litigation. Moreover, if the Board is not made a party to any such litigation and if the litigation results in a petition being directed by a court to withdraw a petition, the Board will be disposed to deny withdrawal of the petition.' i Members Bean and Fanning would permit withdrawal without comment. 122 NLRB No. 84. 564 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's request to withdraw the petition be, and it hereby is, granted with prejudice to its filing a new petition for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order, unless good cause is shown why the Board should entertain a new petition filed prior to the expiration of such period. Local Union No. 450, International Union of Operating Engi- neers, AFL-CIO, and W. S. Chennault, business representative [Tellepsen Construction Company] and J. R. Rittenberry, Charging Party. Case No. 39-CB-120. December 19, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER On December 19, 1956, Trial Examiner Harry S. Sahm issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re- spondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup- porting brief.' The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed? The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record is the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions, modifica- tions, and additions noted below. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents, in violation of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act, caused the Company dis- criminatorily to deny employee Rittenberry a promotion to master mechanic because he was not a member in its organization for 3 years. As shown in the Intermediate Report and the record, the Re- spondent Union and the Company were parties to a contract which required that the master mechanic be a "practical mechanic of the craft ... and have three ( 3) years or more of experience at .. . [his] trade." In April 1955, Farmer, the Company's superintendent, told employee Rittenberry that he might surprise him and make him a master mechanic. Rittenberry, who had joined the Respondent Union 2 years earlier, had experience in the trade dating back to 'As the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the Respondents' request for oral argument is denied. 2 Because of their disagreement with the Trial Examiner's findings and recommenda- tions, the Respondents charge the Trial Examiner with bias and prejudice. We find no evidence in the record of bias or prejudice or merit in this contention. 122 NLRB No. 78.