Miratile Manufacturing Co., Inc.

48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be -a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Miratile Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America, affiliated with American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations , Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-6427. July 13, 1959 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 Jewel G. Maher, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members 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 Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's Elkhart, Indiana, plant. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their current contract covering "all employees" is a bar to the petition. The contract was originally nego- tiated in 1954, for a 1-year period, and, thereafter, in August 1955 and in September 1956, successively extended, with wage increases, until September 1958. At the time the original contract and exten- sions were negotiated, the Employer's only plant was located in Chicago, Illinois. However, in September 1957 the Employer started operations at its new plant at Elkhart, which is the subject of the present petition. The following September a further wage increase was negotiated and the basic agreement extended to September 1960. The Elkhart plant, located 120 miles from the Chicago plant has its 1 The Employer's contention as to the adequacy of the Petitioner 's compliance with Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) involves administrative matters not cognizable in this pro- ceeding. We are presently administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance. See Desaulnier8 and Company, 115 NLRB 1025 , and Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852 2 Wallboard & Aluminum Workers Union intervened at the hearing on the basis of a contract claim. 124 NLRB No. 10. MIRATILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 49 own separate superintendent. Its work force is composed almost wholly of new employees. There is little employee interchange be- tween the plants. Certain clerical matters are handled by the Chicago office for the Elkhart plant, but the payroll for production and main- tenance employees is maintained locally. Although the products manufactured at Elkhart are also made in Chicago, we think it clear that the Elkhart plant is a new operation and not merely an accretion to the Chicago plant. Consequently, as the 1954 contract and the 1955 and 1956 extensions were negotiated prior to the time the Elkhart plant was established, they cannot, under well-settled law, be held to cover the Elkhart plant for contract-bar purposes .3 As for the 1958 extension which was negotiated after the Elkhart operation com- menced, it contained no modification of the original recognition clause as set forth in the extended 1954 contract and did not otherwise specifically include the Elkhart operation in its coverage. It merely adopted as did the earlier extensions, the recognition clause set forth in the original 1954 contract. Therefore, we find there is, for contract- bar purposes, no written contract covering the Elkhart plant. The Intervenor and Employer contend, however, that, in negotiating the 1958 extension, they dealt with the applicability of the contract to the Elkhart plant and that, upon assurances by the Intervenor that it represented a number of employees there, they considered the contract as covering that plant. This arrangement, however, insofar as appli- cable to the Elkhart plant was at most only an oral agreement which, under Board rulings, cannot operate as a bar to a petition.' Accord- ingly, we find that there is no contract barring the petition. The Employer's motion to dismiss on this ground is hereby denied.' We further find that a question affecting commerce 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks, as noted above, a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Elkhart, Indiana, plant, while the Employer and the Intervenor contend that, in view of the integration and overall administrative control of the two plants, a single unit of the Chicago and Elkhart operations is alone appro- priate. There are factors indicating that a two-plant unit may be appropriate. Thus, management policies for both plants are deter- mined generally in Chicago. Accounting, inventory, sales, purchas- ing, and other administrative matters are handled for both plants out of Chicago. Moreover, a two-plant unit is, in fact, employerwide. 3 Fleming & Sons, Inc., 118 NLRB 1451, 1452. See, also, General Extrusion Company, Inc., 121 NLRB 1165. 4 Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160; Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 108 NLRB 1468, 1469. 6In view of our determination, we do not pass on whether the contract is not a bar for other reasons urged. 52 5543-60--vol. 124-5 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is, therefore, a type of unit specified in the Act, and is presump- tively an appropriate type of unit.6 However, the appropriateness of a broad unit does not preclude the appropriateness of a smaller one where there are, as here, factors that show that the smaller unit may also be appropriate.' Thus, the Elkhart plant operations and the employees there are under the separate direction and supervision of a resident plant manager. The payroll for its production and mainte- nance employees is maintained in its own office, and there is little, if any, interchange of employees between the two plants which are about 120 miles apart. Also, like an employerwide unit, a plantwide unit is presumptively appropriate.9 Moreover, the Board normally permits employees at a new plant to decide whether or not they wish to be separately represented.9 Accordingly, we believe that, in these cir- cumstances, either a unit limited to the Elkhart employees, or a two- plant unit, may be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. But, before making any final unit determination, we shall first ascer- tairi the desires of the employees as expressed in. the election directed hereinafter. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the follow- ing voting group : all production and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Employer's Elkhart, Indiana, plant, excluding all clerical and confidential employees, guards, foremen and superin- tendents, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. If a majority of the Employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of the Employees in the voting group cast their ballots for the Intervenor, they will. be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented by the Intervenor as pa.rt of an enlployer- wide, two-plant unit and the Regional Director will issue a certifica- tion of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 See Beaumont Forging Company, 110 NLRB 2200, 2201-2202. 4 See F. IV. Saybolt & Company, 105 NLRB 510, 512. 8 Beaumont Forging Company, supra. O•I+leming & Sons, Inc., 118 NLRB 1451, 1453; Rockingham Poultry Cooperative, Inc., 113 NLRB 376, 378. Swift & Company and United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-2877. July 13, 1959 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 Harold L. Hudson, 124 NLRB No. 14.