Maramount Corp.

508 310 NLRB No. 65 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and its locals are represented jointly in this proceeding and all references to the Petitioner ILGWU refer collectively to the international and the locals. 2 Inasmuch as the record contains no commerce information per- taining to Maramount Corp., we shall remand the Maramount peti- tion, Case 29–RC–6754, to the Regional Director for the limited pur- pose of reopening the record to receive such evidence concerning the Board’s jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Regional Director shall take fur- ther appropriate action consistent with this decision. Maramount Corp. and Plastic, Metal, Novelty and Allied Workers Union, Local 132–98, ILGWU, AFL–CIO B.J. Paper Products, Inc. and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Peti- tioner Durlacher Co. and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Petitioner Liberty House Trading Corporation and Inter- national Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Petitioner3 A.G.F. Sports, Ltd. and International Ladies’ Gar- ment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Petitioner Gel Spice Company, Inc. and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Peti- tioner Lynch Novelty, Inc. and Embroidery, Belt and Al- lied Workers’ Union, Local 66–40 ILGWU, AFL–CIO, Petitioner Nova Clutch, Inc. and Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, Peti- tioner Marlin Steel Products Co. and Plastic, Metal, Nov- elty and Allied Workers Union, Local 132–98, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Petitioner Three Sisters Apparel Corp. and International La- dies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Pe- titioner Bedford Cutting Mills and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Peti- tioner Nova Clutch, Inc. and Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, Peti- tioner New York Metropolitan Employer Association and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Petitioner Williamsburgh Trade Association and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Cases 29–RC–6754, 29–RC–6760, 29– RC–6762, 29–RC–6781, 29–RC–6782, 29–RC– 6783, 29–RC–6784, 29–RC–6799, 29–RC–7168, 29–RC–7172, 29–RC–7173, 29–RC–7481, 29– RC–7556, and 29–RC–7557 February 19, 1993 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND OVIATT Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held be- fore Hearing Officers Rhonda Schectman, Luis A. St. Bernard, and Arthur Eisenberg on various dates be- tween April 8, 1987, and January 3, 1991. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67(h) of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula- tions, this proceeding was transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Petitioner ILGWU,1 the Williamsburgh Trade Association (WTA), and various Employers. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the hearing officers’ rulings and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are affirmed. On the entire record in this case, the Board finds I. THE BOARD’S JURISDICTION The Williamsburgh Trade Association is a multiem- ployer group composed of garment and textile manu- facturers, and other manufacturing and nonmanufac- turing enterprises, located in New York and New Jer- sey. During the 12-month period preceding the com- mencement of the hearing in this case, a representative period, the Williamsburgh Trade Association had member-employers that purchased and received sup- plies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State in which the member-employer was located. At some point during the pendency of this proceeding, all of the individual employers listed in the caption above were members of the Williamsburgh Trade Association, with the exception of the three em- ployers listed below. A.G.F. Sports, Ltd. is a sewing contractor in the la- dies’ apparel industry. During the 12-month period preceding the commencement of the hearing in this case, a representative period, A.G.F. Sports, Ltd. per- formed services valued in excess of $50,000 for em- ployers meeting the Board’s jurisdictional standards. Liberty House Trading Corporation is a cutting con- tractor in the women’s apparel industry. During the 12- month period preceding the commencement of the hearing in this case, a representative period, Liberty House Trading Corporation performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for employers meeting the Board’s jurisdictional standards.2 On the basis of the facts set forth above, we find that the Williamsburgh Trade Association, A.G.F. Sports, Ltd., and Liberty House Trading Corporation 509 MARAMOUNT CORP. 3 Teamsters Local 810 has only petitioned for representation of the employees of Nova Clutch; all other petitions in this proceeding have been filed by the ILGWU. 4 Local 17–18 has intervened in all of the cases involved in this proceeding. 5 Teamsters Local 723 is the Intervenor in Gel Spice Company, Case 29–RC–6783, only. At the hearing, Petitioner ILGWU and In- tervenor Local 17–18 expressed no position concerning Local 723’s labor organization status based on their lack of knowledge about Local 723. 6 Included among the garment industry and textile industry em- ployers were those operating warehouses and sweater mills, sewing contractors and cutting contractors, importers, retail sales enterprises, sportswear manufacturers, cloth filter bag manufacturers, lingerie manufacturers, and stuffed toy manufacturers. The group included jobbers, as well as contractors and manufacturers. 7 The nonmember employers are A.G.F. Sports, Ltd., Liberty House Trading Corporation, and Maramount Corp. These employers have entered into individual collective-bargaining agreements with Local 17–18. 8 In addition to the petitions consolidated in the instant proceeding, the Petitioner ILGWU contemporaneously filed petitions for rep- resentation of many more WTA members’ employees on an indi- vidual employer unit basis. Some of those petitions may still be pending in the Region, awaiting this decision. 9 On December 13, 1989, 18 members of the WTA withdrew from that association and formed a new multiemployer bargaining associa- tion, the Greater New York Metropolitan Employers Association (Metro). On December 18, 1989, Metro signed a recognition agree- ment with Local 17–18 agreeing to continue in full force and effect the existing WTA collective-bargaining agreement until its expiration on March 18, 1990. Thereafter, in May 1990, Metro and Local 17– 18 reached agreement on a new 3-year contract covering the Metro employers’ production and maintenance employees. are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Peti- tioner International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and its locals, Petitioner Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,3 Intervenor United Produc- tion Workers Union Local 17–18,4 and Intervenor Local 723, International Brotherhood of Teamsters5 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employers. III. QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNITS A. Factual Background In 1974, six employers located in the Williamsburgh section of Brooklyn, all of whose employees were rep- resented for purposes of collective bargaining by the United Production Workers Union Local 17–18 (Local 17–18), joined together and formed the Williamsburgh Trade Association (WTA) in order, inter alia, to nego- tiate and bargain with Local 17–18. The original WTA members were primarily observant Orthodox Jews who believed that their special concerns regarding hours of work, holidays, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment could best be addressed through multiem- ployer bargaining with Local 17–18. They also be- lieved that joining together for multiemployer negotia- tions would enable them to save legal fees and ex- penses, gain clout with Local 17–18, and enhance labor stability by preventing raids from other unions. In March 1975, the WTA and Local 17–18 signed the first in what would become a series of successive 3-year collective-bargaining agreements covering the employees of the WTA members. From its inception with only six employers, the WTA grew quickly and, as of July 1989, the WTA had approximately 148 member-employers. Those employers were largely en- gaged in the varied aspects of the garment and textile industries,6 but member-employers were also involved in automobile parts manufacturing, spice preparation and distribution, wine making, furniture, printing, jew- elry, meat packing, plastic goods manufacturing, book binding, chocolate manufacturing, plumbing supply, frozen food processing, paper goods, lumber yard, pic- ture frame manufacturing, and light fixture manufac- turing businesses. During the pendency of this proceeding, the Peti- tioner ILGWU filed numerous petitions seeking rep- resentation of the production and maintenance employ- ees of many of the WTA members, as well as several nonmember employers,7 on an individual employer unit basis.8 From December 1989 until the expiration of the March 19, 1987–March 18, 1990 collective-bar- gaining agreement, many members withdrew from the WTA, resulting in a membership of approximately 92 employers. Subsequently, upon the expiration of the 1987–1990 collective-bargaining agreement between WTA and Local 17–18, the Petitioner ILGWU filed, as an alternative to the individual employer petitions, a petition for representation of the production and main- tenance employees in the overall WTA bargaining unit and a petition for representation of the Greater New York Metropolitan Employers Association9 production and maintenance employees. B. The Parties’ Contentions The WTA contends that the individual employer pe- titions must be dismissed because an overall WTA unit is the only appropriate bargaining unit in view of the long history of multiemployer collective bargaining be- tween the WTA and Local 17–18. The WTA mem- bers’ employees are all represented by the same union, Local 17–18, and are covered by the same welfare 510 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10 Aggregate Sales/Cool Wear; Amerex Textile Co.; Bellroth Knit Sportswear Corp.; Damas Atlantic, Ltd.; Three Scissors, Ltd.; Ele- gant Knitted Headwear, Inc.; Euromoda, Ltd.; J.G. Betterbottom, Inc.; Linen Star, Inc.; The Skirt Rack, Inc.; Starbright Sportswear, Inc.; Techknits, Inc.; Worldwide Distribution Service, Inc.; Bedford Cutting Mills, Inc.; Three Sisters Sportswear, Inc.; and Three Sisters Apparel, Inc. fund. The WTA further contends that by filing the overall WTA and Metro petitions, the ILGWU has conceded that the existing multiemployer, multi-indus- try unit is appropriate. The WTA emphasizes that the multiemployer unit is overwhelmingly composed of garment/textile industry employers whose small shops located within the same geographic area have the same conditions of employ- ment. The WTA argues that, although they produce different products, its members’ employees share simi- lar skill levels, types of work, and employment condi- tions. The WTA argues that its multiemployer, multi-in- dustry association is similar to other successful multi- employer, multi-industry bargaining relationships, such as the Industrial Employers and Distributors Associa- tion (IEDA) in the San Francisco area, and the Plastic and Metal Novelty Manufacturers Association in the New York City area. The WTA also contends that the overall WTA peti- tion must be dismissed or modified because it deviates from the contractual wall-to-wall multiemployer unit by seeking representation of only production and main- tenance employees. The WTA asserts that employees will have an opportunity to exercise their Section 7 rights if an election is held in the overall unit. Finally, the WTA argues that specific employers10 remain members of the WTA because they failed to withdraw from the WTA in a timely and lawful manner. The Petitioner ILGWU contends that the bargaining history between the WTA and Local 17–18 does not compel the Board to find the multiemployer, multi-in- dustry unit appropriate. ILGWU argues that such mul- tiemployer, multi-industry units are not appropriate be- cause the employees’ Section 7 rights are hindered without affording them the advantages inherent in sin- gle-industry, multiemployer units. The ILGWU asserts that the legislative history of the Act shows that Con- gress intended multiemployer bargaining to be limited to single-industry groups, and that, likewise, the Su- preme Court’s approval of multiemployer bargaining through the years has been single industry only. ILGWU contends that multi-industry bargaining nec- essarily results in lowest common denominator con- tracts lacking clauses that are specific to any one in- dustry. ILGWU points out that the IEDA agreement, relied on by the WTA, demonstrates the difficulties of multi-industry bargaining: almost half of the IEDA members have separate agreements with the unions to address industry-specific concerns. ILGWU asserts that the union attempted to split the Plastic and Metal Nov- elty Manufacturers into a plastics group and a metals group. Further, ILGWU emphasizes that the Plastic and Metal Novelty contract does not contain provisions establishing job classifications or minimum rates. ILGWU contends that the garment industry is par- ticularly inappropriate for mixed-industry multiem- ployer bargaining, and notes that neither the IEDA nor the Plastic and Metal Novelty group include any gar- ment industry employers. The ILGWU argues in the alternative that if an elec- tion is directed in the overall WTA unit, that the office clericals must be excluded. Finally, the ILGWU argues that, in any event, elections must be held at the non- member employers, A.G.F. Sports, Liberty House Trading Corporation, and Maramount, because those petitions were pending during the relevant window pe- riods. Nonmember Employers A.G.F. Sports, Liberty House Trading Corporation, and Maramount Corp. argue that the individual petitions filed for representa- tion of their employees are subject to contract bars. Individual Employers Aggregate Sales/Cool Wear, Damas Atlantic, Ltd., Three Scissors, Ltd., Elegant Knitted Headwear Co., Inc., Bedford Cutting Mills, Three Sisters Apparel, Inc., and Three Sisters Sports- wear, Inc. contend that they have withdrawn or been expelled from membership in the WTA, and are no longer bound by the WTA/Local 17–18 collective-bar- gaining relationship. C. Discussion and Conclusions 1. The unit scope issue Section 9(b) of the Act provides that ‘‘[t]he Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the em- ployer unit, craft unit, plant unit or subdivision there- of.’’ In Shipowners’ Assn. of the Pacific Coast, 7 NLRB 1002 (1938), review denied sub nom. AFL v. NLRB, 103 F.2d 933 (D.C. Cir. 1939), affd. 308 U.S. 401 (1940), the Board, with Supreme Court approval, recognized the appropriateness of a multiemployer bar- gaining unit. Determining whether a unit is appropriate for bargaining requires the Board to balance the com- peting interests of ‘‘insuring to employees their rights to self-organization and freedom of choice in collective bargaining and of fostering industrial peace and sta- bility through collective bargaining.’’ Kalamazoo Paper Box Corp., 136 NLRB 134, 137 (1962). The cornerstone of the Board’s policies on appro- priateness of bargaining units is the community-of-in- terest doctrine, which operates ‘‘to group together only employees who have substantial mutual interests in wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.’’ 511 MARAMOUNT CORP. 11 In other situations, the Board has found bargaining history not to be determinative of unit appropriateness. See, e.g., Burns Inter- national Security Service, 257 NLRB 387, 388 (1981). 12 Unit determinations, by their nature, are highly fact specific. See NLRB v. WKRG-TV, 470 F.2d 1302, 1311 (5th Cir. 1973) (‘‘deter- mination of a unit’s appropriateness will invariably involve factual situations peculiar to the employer and unit at issue’’). In reaching our conclusion, we rely on the particular circumstances of this case. We express no view on the appropriateness of multiemployer, multi- industry bargaining units, or on whether the garment industry is in- appropriate for mixed-industry, multiemployer units. 13 For example, the minimum starting wage rate for employees covered by the 1984–1987 and 1987–1990 WTA/Local 17–18 col- lective-bargaining agreements was the prevailing Federal or New York State minimum wage rate, whichever is higher. Annual hourly wage increases for covered employees averaged $0.15. WTA’s exec- utive director testified that he did not know whether employees of the various WTA employers working as sewing machine operators, pressers, cutters, or shipper/receivers received any wage rate other than the uniform minimum wage rate. 14 With these facts in mind, Member Oviatt observes that while it is possible in multiemployer, multi-industry bargaining that the em- ployees in some lower paying industries might benefit by having a contract that also covered employees in certain higher paying indus- tries, e.g., if the multi-industry contract contained economic terms reflecting the ‘‘pull’’ of the higher paying industries, that is not the case here. Thus, it would appear that bargaining in this multiem- ployer, multi-industry unit has not inured to the benefit of the di- verse groups of employees. Burns, supra, 257 NLRB 388. 15 NLRB Ann. Rep. 39 (1950). ‘‘Such a mutuality of interest serves to assure the coherence among employ- ees necessary for efficient collective bargaining and at the same time to prevent a functionally distinct minor- ity group from being submerged in an overly large unit.’’ Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 172–173 (1971). The instant case presents us with the task of bal- ancing employees’ Section 7 rights of self-organization and freedom of choice against the interest of stability in labor relations, by requiring us to decide whether to give controlling weight to the long history of collective bargaining between the WTA and Local 17–18 in the face of the individual employer unit petitions.11 For the reasons set forth below, we find that the balance should be struck in favor of the employees’ Section 7 rights.12 The filing of numerous individual petitions in the in- stant proceeding evidences that employees are seeking to exercise their fundamental Section 7 rights to self- organization and freedom of choice in collective bar- gaining. These petitions request elections on an em- ployer-by-employer basis, and Section 9(b) of the Act, quoted above, specifically recognizes that an ‘‘em- ployer’’ unit is appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining. Such a unit is clearly appropriate be- cause there is likely to be a strong community of inter- est among the persons employed by the same employer in connection with the same enterprise at the same lo- cation. By contrast, apart from the fact that they have a common bargaining representative, the employees in the existing WTA unit appear to enjoy no special com- munity of interest. In reaching this conclusion, we rely in particular on the following factors. First, there is a wide diversity of businesses among the employer-members of the WTA. As noted above, the WTA membership has included employers in- volved in businesses ranging from garment and textile manufacturing to food processing, and from lumber yards to automobile parts, to name just a few. Second, the WTA unit is somewhat geographically diverse. The various members’ shops are scattered be- yond the New York City boroughs to suburban coun- ties in New York and New Jersey. Third, there is no evidence of contact among the employees of the various WTA employers, of em- ployee interchange or transfers, of integration of work functions, or of common supervision. The only point of intersection in their terms and conditions of employ- ment has developed from the fact that their employers joined the WTA. Finally, and most significantly, notwithstanding the fact that WTA employers operate in differing indus- tries, the WTA/Local 17–18 contracts over the years have failed to reflect any particular industry-specific concerns. Further, there have been no riders or supple- mental agreements between Local 17–18 and any of the employer-members to address these concerns on a shop-by-shop basis. We find these circumstances to be particularly troubling in light of the testimony of the parties’ expert witnesses that industry-specific factors play a crucial role in determining wages, as well as job classifications, promotions, health and safety, and other contract provisions. Our own experience, based on our review of numerous collective-bargaining agreements, is entirely consistent with this expert testimony. The absence of such industry-specific contractual terms13 strongly suggests to us that, if bargaining on the basis of the existing WTA unit has advanced the statutory interest in stable labor relations, it has done so at the expense of employee interests. Burns Security Service, 257 NLRB 387, 388 (1981).14 Considering all these factors and noting that the Act expressly dictates that employee freedom of choice must be considered in any unit determination, we find that the WTA has not presented adequate justification for deeming the historical pattern of bargaining to be a bar to the instant petitions. In contrast to the single- employer units petitioned for, the existing WTA unit is a heterogeneous aggregation of distinct groups of employees with widely differing interests and con- cerns. Our reasoning applies with even greater force with respect to the newly-formed Metro unit, which consists of 18 employers that had withdrawn from the WTA. 512 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 15 Member Oviatt finds that the garment industry is especially in- appropriate for mixed-industry, multiemployer units because Con- gress has prescribed special statutory provisions to address unique problems in this industry. The garment industry proviso to Sec. 8(e) of the Act creates an absolute statutory exemption from the proscrip- tions of Secs. 8(e) and 8(b)(4)(B) for agreements involving employ- ers working on the goods or premises of a jobber or manufacturer or performing parts of an integrated process of production in the ap- parel and clothing industry. Because of the integrated production process used by garment industry employers, Congress enacted the second proviso to Sec. 8(e) to protect garment industry agreements that prevent jobbers or manufacturers from subcontracting part of the manufacturing process to sweatshops where disadvantaged employ- ees worked for substandard wages and working conditions. The Board has recognized that Congress ‘‘specifically authorized garment industry union to engage in otherwise prohibited conduct for the pur- pose of forcing jobbers to execute agreements requiring them to use only union contractors.’’ Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers, 212 NLRB 735, 738 (1974). The multiemployer, multi-industry units at issue in this proceeding include both garment and nongarment industry employers, thereby precluding garment industry employees from availing themselves of these special protections under the Act. For these reasons, Member Oviatt finds such units to be particularly inappropriate in this case. He also notes the absence of meaningful legislative history on multi- industry units generally. 16 Inasmuch as the Petitioner has maintained the position that it filed the overall petitions for the WTA and Metro units only as a fallback in the event that the individual employer petitions were dis- missed, we shall dismiss the petitions for overall units in Cases 29– RC–7556 and 29–RC–7557. In these two petitions, the Petitioner ILGWU sought to represent a unit of production and maintenance employees rather than the wall-to-wall unit encompassed by the recently expired contract be- tween the WTA and Local 17–18. In view of our decision in this case, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the petitioned-for overall production and maintenance unit is appropriate. Further, we find it unnecessary to pass on the WTA membership status of the various Employers claiming to have withdrawn or to have been expelled from the WTA. 17 The petitioned-for units are as follows: Maramount, 29–RC–6754 Included: All production and maintenance, shipping and re- ceiving, sanitation employees and trucking employees. Excluded: All office clerical employees, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. B.J. Paper, 29–RC–6760 Included: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by the employer at his 544 Park Avenue, Brooklyn, NY location. Excluded: All office clericals, supervisors, salespeople, tech- nical people and guards as defined in the Act. Durlacher, 29–RC–6762 Included: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by the employer at his 47–11 Van Dam Street, Long Island City, NY location. Excluded: All office clericals, supervisors, salespeople, tech- nical people and guards as defined in the Act. Liberty House Trading, 29–RC–6781 Included: All production and maintenance, shipping and re- ceiving, sanitation employees. Excluded: All office clerical employees, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. A.G.F. Sports, 29–RC–6782 Included: All production and maintenance, shipping and re- ceiving, sanitation employees. Excluded: All office clerical employees, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. Gel Spice, 29–RC–6783 Included: Shipping, receiving, grinding, packing employees and all other production and maintenance employees. Excluded: All office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, truck drivers, mechanics, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. Lynch Novelty, 29–RC–6784 Included: Production and maintenance workers. Nova Clutch, 29–RC–6799 and 29–RC–7481 Included: All production, maintenance and shipping employ- ees. Excluded: Supervisors, office clericals and guards. Marlin Steel Products, 29–RC–7168 Included: All production, maintenance, shipping and receiv- ing employees employed by the Employer. Excluded: All office clerical employees, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. Three Sisters Apparel, 29–RC–7172 Included: All production and maintenance workers including machine operators, floor workers, shipping and receiving workers. Excluded: Clerical employees, guards and supervisors. Bedford Cutting Mills, 29–RC–7173 Included: All production and maintenance workers including cutters, table helpers, floor workers, shipping and receiving workers. Excluded: Clerical employees, guards and supervisors. 18 At various times during the hearing, the hearing officer re- minded the parties that the hearing was supposed to provide them the opportunity to make a comprehensive record on all the relevant issues in the case, including eligibility issues. On February 15, 1990, the Regional Director so advised the parties in writing. See footnote 9, supra. This unit suffers from all of the infirmities of the WTA unit and is not even supported by the factor of bargaining history.15 Accordingly, we find that the multiemployer, multi-industry Metro unit does not warrant the dismissal of individual employer unit petitions.16 2. The contract-bar issue Regarding the A.G.F., Liberty House, and Maramount petitions, we agree with the Petitioner ILGWU that even though those petitions may have been premature as originally filed, based on then-exist- ing independent collective-bargaining agreements with Local 17–18, the petitions remained pending in this proceeding during the relevant window periods for each of the independent contracts. Therefore, we find no contract bar to the petitions. See Royal Crown Cola Bottling Co., 150 NLRB 1624 (1965). 3. The unit composition issue The Petitioners have petitioned for representation of the production and maintenance employees of each employer.17 A production and maintenance unit is a classic appropriate unit, and the record contains no evi- dence that any of the petitioned-for production and maintenance units is not appropriate.18 Accordingly, we shall direct that elections be held in the petitioned- for individual employer units. 513 MARAMOUNT CORP. ORDER It is ordered that the petitions in Cases 29–RC–7556 and 29–RC–7557 are dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 29–RC–6754 is remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of taking further action in accord with this decision. [Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]