Micro Metalizing Co., Inc.

MICRO METALIZING COMPANY, INC., ETC. 293 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employers within Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .23 4. The following employees of the joint employers constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act : all seamen employed upon the vessels owned or managed by Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S.A., and jointly oper- ated by the Employers, excluding guards, masters, other licensed officers, and all other supervisors.14. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERs dissenting : For the reason stated in my dissenting opinions in West India Fruit and Steamship Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 343, and Hamilton Bros., Inc., 133 NLRB 868, I would dismiss the petition herein. time of the close of the hearing . As we find that " Sindimar" is a labor organization, the motion to intervene is hereby granted . See Hamilton Bros., Inc, 133 NLRB 868. Sociedad Naccional de Marineros de Hondoras was listed in the petition as the bargain- ing representative of the employees in the alleged appropriate unit and the record shows that, at the time of the hearing, a contract between Socledad Naccional and Empress covering the employees was then in effect. Copies of the petition , of the notice of hear- ing, and other formal papers were not served on Socledad Naccional . However, on dune 7, 1961, the Board issued a notice, served on the parties and Sociedad Naccional, in which, inter alia, it accorded that organization a right to intervene and state its position on the issues by filing within 25 days a statement of intervention and a brief. As Sociedad Naccional did not reply to the notice, we conclude it is not interested in being a party to this proceeding, and we therefore do not consider it to be one. 28 We find contrary to the contention of Empresa that its contract with Socledad Nacclonal in effect at the time the petition was filed but expiring in April 1961 is not a bar to this 'proceeding, assuming it would otherwise be so effective, because the decision herein is issuing after the expiration date of that contract. See St. Louis Independent Packing Company, 122 NLRB 887, 889. 24 The unit appears substantially as requested by the Petitioner . Empresa and UFCO did not contend the unit is inappropriate in either scope or composition , but object to the unit on the grounds considered above and found without merit, i e, that UFCO Is not an employer of the employees and that the Board is without jurisdiction in this case. Micro Metalizing Company, Inc., and White Rod Metalizing Corporation and Local 819, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-11263. November 15, 1961 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 Haywood E. Banks, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's- rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2 'The parties' names appear as amended at the hearing. 2 We grant the Petitioner's unopposed motion to amend its petition as described below in this Decision. 134 NLRB No. 30. 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provision of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. 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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In the petition the Petitioner requested a unit of the production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, at the Employer's New York City, New York, metal plating plant, which unit is cur- rently represented by the Intervenor.' At the hearing, the Petitioner requested elections in separate units of the Employer's truckdrivers and the production and maintenance employees, excluding truckdrivers. Although the Petitioner described its second unit request as an amendment of its petition, we construe the request as an alternative unit position, in view of the Petitioner's declared intent to represent all of the Employer's employees in one unit, if successful in the elections in both units described in the second unit request. In these circumstances, we find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's New York City, New York, metal plating plant, including truckdrivers and seasonal employees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, temporary employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, is the only appropriate unit. The Employer would include employees hired to work during seasonal peak periods. The Petitioner would exclude them as tempo- rary employees. The Employer's normal work force numbers 20 em- ployees, although at times only about 14 employees are retained. Its peak season is in November and December when the work force usually increases to approximately 54 employees, although in former years, when the Employer's operations were extensive, has increased to as many as 200 employees. The slack season is in June. Employees hired for the seasonal period are told that the work is seasonal, but that they may acquire regular status if business warrants. They work an average of 8 to 10 weeks. Except for an initial probationary period of 30 days, all employees have substantially the same benefits and conditions of employment. When laid off, employees are told that they will be called back if the work picks up. In rehiring for work s Local 121 , Amalgamated Watch Clock and Time Instrument Workers Union , Inter- national Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO. TRI-TRONICS LABORATORIES, INC. 295 during the peak, the Employer gives preference to the most recently laid-off employees. Approximately 75 to 90 percent to those laid off return the following year for work during the peak period. We find that employees hired for seasonal peak periods are seasonal, rather than temporary, employees, as the Petitioner contends, and shall include them in the unit.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 Tropicana Products, Inc., 122 NLRB 12. Tri-Tronics Laboratories, Inc. and Lodge 1591, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1447. November 16, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On April 18, 1961, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Tri-Tronics Lab- oratories, Inc., Euless, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : '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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. awe rely particularly on the following facts, among others: (1) Vice President Great- house's remark of September 27, in reference to Tribble, "Good riddance" ; (2) Foreman Hatchcock's warning to Tribble to "be very careful . . . and by all means stay busy" be- cause "the company was on" him "about" her; and (3) Respondent's failure, in the face of all the evidence indicating its discriminatory motivation, to offer a credible explana- tion for again discharging her. Accordingly, we agree with the Trial Examiner's con- clusion that the second discharge was likewise due to Tribble's union activity and to her disregard of warnings to abandon such activity. 134 NLRB No. 31.