The Mosler Safe Co.

THE MOSLER SAFE COMPANY 35 related to the work of other production and maintenance employees, and they have no skills in common which would give them any func- tional cohesiveness. It is clear that District 65 has put together an arbitrary grouping of employees who have no skills, duties, or interests serving to differentiate them from the employees in the contract unit. In the absence of any basis for separate representation of these em- ployees, as shall dismiss the petition of District 65 .1 We find that the following groups of employees at the Employer's operations in the New York City metropolitan area excluding from each unit employees who are represented by labor organizations other than Amalgamated Local Union 355, Independent, professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors, constitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : (a) All office clerical employees.5 (b) All production and maintenance employees, including shipping and receiving employees. [The Board dismissed the petition filed in Case No. 2-RC-10367.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] ' Cupplea Company Manufacturers, 127 NLRB 1457. G Although SIU has submitted a sufficient showing of interest in the overall unit, no information was submitted as to its interest with respect to the office clerical unit found appropriate herein. The election among these employees directed below is therefore con- ditioned on the Regional Director ascertaining, before such election is held, that SIII has a sufficient showing of interest among these employees. John H. Harland Company, 127 NLRB 588. The Mosler Safe Company and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Safe Workers Organization, Chap- ter #2. Case No. 9-RC-4037. September 12, 1960 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS On July 18, 1960, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) issued, and on July 19, 1960, served upon the parties his report on election, objections to election and recommenda- tions to the Board in the above-entitled proceeding. In his report, the Regional Director recommended to the Board that the Petitioner's objections be overruled and that the Intervenor be certified. On July 28, 1960, the Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file exceptions to the Regional Director's report to August 8, 1960. The extension was granted and on August 8 the Petitioner filed its exceptions and a supporting memorandum. Thereafter, on August 10 the Employer filed a motion to strike and dismiss the Petitioner's exceptions and a brief in support of its mo- 129 NLRB No. 8. 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, asserting that the Petitioner's request for extension was untimely made under Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and submitted that the exceptions "should be striken from the file or dismissed because filed belatedly herein and that, under the provisions of Section 102.69 (c), the Board should proceed with the disposition of this case as though no exceptions were filed to the Report of the Regional Director." On August 15, 1960, the Intervenor filed a sim- ilar motion. As service of the Regional Director's report was made by mail, 3 additional days' time is allowed under Section 102.114 of the Board's Rules for filing exceptions or requesting an extension of time for filing exceptions. Thus, in this case, the Petitioner's request was timely for it was received on July 28 and the original due date for filing excep- tions was August 1. Accordingly : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions of the Employer and the Intervenor be, and they hereby are denied, pursuant to Sections 102.69 and 102.114 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as lacking in merit. See Capital Transit Company, 100 NLRB 1173. MEMBER FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above Order Denying Motions. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local No. 469, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1100, AFL- CIO; and International Hodcarriers , Building and Common Laborers Union of America , Local No. 556, AFL-CIO [W. D. Don Thomas Construction Company ] and Howard C. John- son. Case No. 21-CC-343. September 12, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On February 29, 1960, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged 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 Respond- ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting 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 brief, and the entire record 129 NLRB No. 3.