Universal Manufacturing Co.

618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Universal Manufacturing Company and Earl Bowman, Petitioner, and Local Lodge # 1045, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 18-RD-504 June 15, 1972 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Karen A. Hammerstrom. Following the hearing, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.2 i The Employer's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is hereby granted 2 At the hearing, the Union took the position that there might be a contract bar to an election among the employees involved However, it is clear that the last agreement between the parties expired June 17 , 1971, was not renewed, and was not in existence when this petition was filed in December 1971 There is no merit in the Union's contention that the announcement of the wage and price freeze on August 15, 1971, and a telegram of August 19 from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to each of the parties requesting termination of the work stoppage could have had the effect of reinstating the already expired contract or precluding the present proceeding Cf Bowling Green Foods, Inc, 196 NLRB 111 3 This stipulation related to the history of the collective -bargaining relationship between the Union and the Employer and contained the unit description in their most recent contract , but that unit is herein conformed to customary Board terminology 4 Cf The Pipe Machinery Company, 76 NLRB 247, 249-250. 4. In accordance with the stipulation 3 of the parties, we find that the following employees consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All production and maintenance employees of the Employer including shipping and receiving department employees but excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. 5. The parties are in disagreement as to the eligibility of replaced economic strikers. The Em- ployer and the Union appear to have had a continuous collective-bargaining relationship since the Union's certification in 1947. Their latest contract expired June 17, 1971. Thereafter, on August 2, 1971, an economic strike commenced. The parties have been unable to reach agreement on a new collective-bargaining contract and negotiations were suspended by the Employer pending the outcome of this proceeding. On December 22, 1971, the Union, on behalf of its striking members, made an unconditional offer to return to work. No picketing has occurred since that date. The Employer contends that the replaced strikers are ineligible because the strike has been terminated, citing The Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp., 127 NLRB 1086. However, as it is not clear how many individuals are involved or whether the votes of replaced strikers can affect the results of the election and as the Board usually does not resolve eligibility questions of this type unless the ballots are determi- native,4 we shall direct an immediate election and permit these individuals to vote under challenge with the proviso that in the event that the counting of the challenged ballots would affect the results of the election, we shall take such further action as we deem appropriate. [Direction of Elections omitted from publication.6] 5 As herembefore directed, the replaced economic strikers may vote subject to challenge 6 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 LR B v Wyman-Gordon Co. 394 U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an 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 18 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election 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 197 NLRB No. 99