Allied Products Corp.

634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Bronze Architectural Products , a Division of Allied Products Corporation and Raul Mazo, Peti- tioner and Shopmen's Local Union No. 698, of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO. Case 12-RD-316 September 24, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On March 13, 1975, the Regional Director for Re- gion 12 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, finding, inter alia, that certain laid-off employees were ineligible to vote in the election , and that a committee of four employ- ees, which he designated as the Employee Committee and which sought to intervene and appear on the ballot, was not a labor organization. Thereafter, in accord with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for re- view of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds that in reaching the above conclusions he departed from officially reported precedent and made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous. By telegraphic order dated April 22, 1975, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board granted the request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: As stated, an Employee Committee, comprised of four Spanish-speaking employees, including the Peti- tioner, sought to intervene and appear on the ballot. The Regional Director found the Employee Commit- tee not to be a labor organization, in accord with positions of the Employer and the Union, stating only that record testimony does not establish that it meets the statutory definition of a labor organiza- tion.' 1 Sec. 2(5) of the Act provides, "The term 'labor organization' means any organization of any kind , or any agency or employee representation com- mittee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning griev- ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or condi- tions of work." The record contains testimony by the Petitioner that the Employee Committee represents a large ma- jority of employees, that it wishes "to reach an agree- ment" with the Employer, that it represents all em- ployees regardless of race, and that it intends to handle any problems in negotiation and resolution of grievances with the aid of outside counsel. From this testimony it is clear that the Employee Committee "exists for the purpose . . . of dealing with employ- ers" concerning grievances and negotiation of work- ing conditions. Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that the Employee Committee is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of the Act and may therefore intervene and appear on the ballot herein. As indicated, the Petitioner also contends that the Regional Director erred in finding all laid-off em- ployees to be ineligible to vote. As found by the Regional Director, the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of custom-ordered ar- chitectural metal products; thus there is no inventory and its business depends on the health of the con- struction industry. With recent cutbacks in the con- struction industry, there has been a severe decrease in employment at the Employer's plant as current contracts are completed and new orders not ob- tained. The Employer's work force ranged from a low of 71 in March 1974 to a high of 105 in August 1974. During the last months of 1974 there were sub- stantial layoffs reducing the force to 49 employees in January 1975. The record reveals 12 layoffs in January and 9 in February 1975, leaving only 28 employees as of the hearing date, February 28, 1975. Although the Em- ployer has not received any new contracts, it is con- stantly submitting bids. However, after the winning of a contract and before production starts, there is usually a timelag of 16 to 24 weeks. The current col- lective-bargaining contract provides that laid-off em- ployees retain their seniority for 12 months from the date of layoff. A witness for the Employer testified that the possibility of recalling more than 12 employ- ees is quite remote and that the 12 included 8 people laid off on February 28, 1975, and 4 laid off in Janu- ary 1975. We agree with the Regional Director that the em- ployees laid off prior to January 1975 have no rea- sonable expectancy of recall in the foreseeable future. However, as the above-referred-to uncontroverted testimony indicates that it is possible that 12 employees laid off in January and February 1975 may be recalled by the Employer, without spec- ifications as to which of the total number laid off in that period might be selected for recall, we shall per- mit all the employees laid off in 1975 to vote under challenge. 220 NLRB No. 112 GENERAL BRONZE ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS 635 Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re- period for determining eligibility shall be that imme- gional Director for the purpose of conducting an diately preceding the issuance date of this Decision. election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] Election, as modified herein,2 except that the payroll All production and maintenance employees engaged in the fabrication of iron, steel, metal and other products or in maintenance work in or 2 The unit which the Regional Director found to be appropriate is de- about the Employer's plant in Medley, Florida, including local truck scribed as follows: drivers; excluding all office clerical employees, clerical employees, in- spectors, stock clerks, professional employees, over-the-road truckdnv- ers, warehousemen , watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.