The Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Co.

THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE MANUFACTURING CO. 633 represented by the Petitioner as a part of a single overall unit, which in these circumstances we find appropriate, and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. As the voting group established above encompasses more employees than that originally sought by the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed not to proceed with the election until he shall have deter- mined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the aforementioned voting group. In the event that the Petitioner does not wish to proceed in an election in such broader voting group, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of issuance of this Direction and shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] The Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company and Inter- national Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and The Procter & Gamble Employees' Independent Union. Case No. 16-RC-2706. February 21, 1961 ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to stipulation for a consent election, an election was held among the Employer's employees at its Dallas, Texas, plant, on May 11, 1960. Thereafter, on May 18, 1960, The Procter & Gamble Em- ployees' Independent Union, herein called the Intervenor, having re- ceived a majority of the valid votes cast in the election between the Intervenor and Dallas Employees Association, Independent,' was cer- tified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the aforemen- tioned employees. On October 3, 1960, the Intervenor filed a motion to amend the certification by substituting the name "Independent Oil and Chemical Workers of Dallas" in place and stead of the name "The Procter & Gamble Employees' Independent Union." The Em- ployer filed a statement in opposition to the motion, alleging mainly that the proposed amendment would produce confusion in the minds of the employees as to the identity of their bargaining agent. The motion to amend undisputably establishes that the labor or- ganization which was certified to represent the Employer's employees has continued without change in structure or function and that the Intervenor is thereby merely seeking to amend its certification so that the certification will reflect its changed name. The Employer's pre- The Petitioner withdrew from the ballot prior to the election. 130 NLRB No. 63. 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD diction that amendment of the certification as requested will produce confusion is without evidentiary support. Inasmuch as insufficient cause has been shown why the Board should not amend the certifica- tion to reflect the new name of the Intervenor, the certified organiza- tion, we shall grant the motion to amend herein. [The Board amended the certification of representatives issued to The Procter & Gamble Employees' Independent Union by substitut- ing therein "Independent Oil and Chemical Workers of Dallas" for "The Procter & Gamble Employees' Independent Union."] MEMBERS RODGERS and FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above Order Amending Certification of Representatives. American Sugar Refining Company, Chalmette Refinery and Local 1101, United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL- CIO. Case No. 15-CA-1734. February 23, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On September 22, 1960, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. 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 Fanning and Kimball]. 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following modification. For the reasons indicated in the Intermediate Report, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing, in February 1960, to furnish the Union with the then existing job descriptions of the job classifications in the appropriate unit herein. These job descriptions are known as the 1954 job descriptions. The Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent be required, among other things, to furnish the Union with the 1954 job descriptions. Respondent contends that these job descriptions contained inaccuracies. In the interim between March 1960, on a date following the filing of the charge herein, and the date 130 NLRB No. 81.