Key Research & Development Co.

134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Key Research & Development Co. and United Glass & Ceramics Workers of North America, AFL-CIO-CLC Petitioner.. Case 4-RC-8082 May 22, 1969 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MCCULI.OCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On February 4, 1969, the Regional Director for Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Penndel, Pennsylvania plant, rejecting the Employer's contention, inter alia, that the petition should be dismissed because the Penndel plant was in the process of being relocated in Pennington, New Jersey. Thereafter, the Employer filed a request for review which the Regional Director treated as a Motion for Reconsideration and issued a Supplemental Decision and Order Reopening the Record. On March 13, 1969, the Regional Director issued an Amended Decision and Direction of Election, finding that as a considerable time remained before the Penndel plant would be shut down and a substantial number of Penndel. employees had shown a commitment to transfer to Pennington , an immediate election should be held among employees at both plants. Thereafter, the Employer filed a request for review of the Regional Director's Amended Decision on the grounds that he departed from established Board precedent and made factual findings which were clearly erroneous. The Petitioner filed opposition thereto. On April 7, 1969, the National Labor Relations Board by telegraphic Order granted the request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, including the briefs of the parties, and makes the following findings: At the time the petition was filed the Employer was engaged in the manufacture of cosmetics and toiletries at Penndel, Pennsylvania. At the time of the first hearing, the Employer asserted that it planned to move these operations from Penndel, Pennsylvania to Pennington, New Jersey, about 24 miles from Penndel. At the time of the reopened hearing on February 26, 1969, the Employer indicated that it planned to operate the two plants simultaneously until May 15 when the Penndel plant would be closed; that in the first week in March, there would be 32 to 40 employees in Pennington and 30 to 35 in Penndel; that by April I, there would be 50 to 60 employees in Pennington and about 20 in Penndel. In its brief on review, the Employer states that as of April 14, there were 82 employees at Pennington, of whom 46 were new hires and 36 were transferees from Penndel; that it expected to have 6 new hires on April 15; and that it was questionable that any additional employees would be transferring from Penndel. The Employer's contention that no election should be held until after completion of the transfer of operations to Pennington is rejected. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case, we find that the existing complement of employees at Pennington is a representative and substantial one. In the circumstances, we find that the appropriate unit herein is all production and maintenance employees at Pennington alone and that an immediate election therein should be held. Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Regional Director in order that he may conduct an immediate election pursuant to his Amended Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the eligibility payroll period therefor shall be that immediately preceding the date below.' ,in order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236, N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that a corrected election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 4 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. 176 NLRB No. 12