American Brake Shoe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1282 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and separate proceeding initiated by the filing of the second petition
was barred by an existing contract, there is, I submit, no proceeding
before the Board in which an election can be ordered. By ordering
an election on the strength of the withdrawn petition in the closed
case, the majority ignores not only the Board's published Rules and
Regulations, but also Board precedent and sound administrative
practice. For as the Board said in Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.,
103 NLRB 989:
The ... proceeding having been effectively terminated [by the
withdrawal of the petition] there was . . . no proceeding pend-
ing in which the election . . . could be held.
Furthermore, the majority's decision is contrary to sound adminis-
trative practice. The Papermakers had available to it adequate
remedy to challenge the Regional Officer's position that the original
petition was untimely filed. 'It could have refused to heed the Re-
gional Officer's recommendation, awaited the Regional Director's dis-
missal of the petition, and then appealed the dismissal to the Board.
It did not choose to utilize Board procedure to advocate its position,
but voluntarily withdrew its petition. Unless the Board insists that
parties employ prescribed legal remedies in prosecuting their claims,
there can be no finality to Board proceedings.
For the above stated reasons, I would refuse to entertain the Paper-
makers' first petition and would dismiss the second petition as being
barred by contract.
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE COMPANY, SOUTHERN WHEEL DIVISION and
INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-2798. September
10, 1954
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 David L. Trezise,
hearing officer. 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 1 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
i The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
109 NLRB No. 180.
AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE COMPANY 1283
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Cal-
era, Alabama, plant, excluding executive, administrative, and profes-
sional employees, foremen, assistant foremen, and supervisors in
charge of any class of labor, special apprentices in training for super-
visory or sales positions, inspectors, assistant inspectors, technical
employees, office employees, office clerical employees, plant clerical
employees, watchmen, guards, and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. The Employer contends that the petition is premature because
of contemplated expansion of the unit. The plant began in Febru-
ary 1954, with 20 employees, to manufacture cast steel railroad car
wheels, a new product. At the time of the hearing, June 17, 1954,
there were 30 employees in 13 classifications, two-thirds of the plant
building had been built, 25 percent of the equipment was installed,
and the plant was producing 24 car wheels a day. None of the prod-
ucts had, however, been placed on the market. The Employer plans
to produce 400 wheels a day, with 120-150 employees in 30-35 differ-
ent classifications, when full production is reached, and hopes to reach
full, production within a year's time. However, the plant superin-
tendent testified that the Employer has encountered "serious stum-
bling blocks to capacity production." He further stated that, "even
with prompt solution of these problems, it will be at least another
year before we can reasonably expect to reach rated production ca-
pacity." He could not give a definite date when production would
be increased beyond the present rate, nor could he approximate the
number of employees that would be added each month.
Under these circumstances, it appears that the contemplated ex-
pansion is uncertain, and that the present employee complement is a
substantial and representative segment of those to be employed in the
foreseeable future. Accordingly, we see no reason for departing from
the Board's usual policy of directing an immediate election.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
2R. P. Scherer Corporation, 95 NLRB 1426; Oliver Iron and Steel Corporation, 98
NLRB 1110
334811-55-vol 109-82