Buffalo Arms, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 950 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer at its New Haven,
Connecticut, operations, including shipping and receiving clerks, but
excluding factory clerical employees, technical employees, design
drafting apprentices, executives, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer contends that the Board should not entertain the
petition because of an alleged agreement between the Petitioner and
the Connecticut Federation of Labor that if the Petitioner won, the
employees would be divided among various AFL unions without their
desire. The filing of the petition by the IAM presumptively estab-
lishes its desire and `willingness to represent all the employees it seeks.
In the event the Petitioner wins the election hereinafter directed, it
will be certified as bargaining representative of all employees in the
entire appropriate unit. And the Employer may then insist that the
Petitioner in fact bargain for all such employees, and is not required
to recognize or bargain with any other labor organization as repre-
sentative of its employees. Accordingly, we deny the Employer's mo-
tion to dismiss the petition on this basis, and find that the hearing
officer's rejection of the Employer's offer of proof in this respect was
not prejudicial, and it is hereby affirmed.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MuRDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
a See Gusdorf & Son, 107 NLRB 998. We also find no merit in the Employer 's objection
to the petition on the basis of authorization cards signed on behalf of the American
Federation of Labor being insufficient to authorize the Petitioner (TAM). Although we
regard it as better practice for cards submitted on behalf of a petitioner to name the party
petitioning , we are satisfied in this instance that there is no fraud involved, nor was the
evidence of interest submitted by the Petitioner of questionable authenticity . Further-
more, this is a matter for administrative determination, not litigable by the parties.
Gusdorf & Son, supra; Potomac Electric Power Company, 111 NLRB 553 . As to the
Employer's motion to dismiss on the ground that- the petition did not state that the
Employer declined to recognize the Petitioner , it is well settled that such a technical
deficiency is insufficient to constitute grounds for dismissal. See American Tobacco
Company, Incorporated, 108 NLRB 1211.
Buffalo Arms, Inc., and Hourly Rated Employees Association of
Buffalo Arms, Incorporated , Petitioner.
Buffalo Arms, Inc., Petitioner and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, CIO and Hourly Rated Employees Association of Buffalo
Arms, Inc. Cases Nos. 3-RC-1574 and 3-RM-114. November 9,
1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Murray Freeman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
114 NLRB No. 151,
SWIFT & COMPANY 951
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act. -
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance em-
ployees, including all hourly rated employees, but excluding salaried,
clerical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act 2
[Text of Direction of Election 3 omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
i The hearing officer properly denied the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the instant
proceeding on the ground that the petitions were "untimely" in that ( 1) the Intervenor
and Employer had not had an opportunity to consummate negotiations commenced at
the suggestion of a member of the Senate Labor Committee during the course of a hearing
before that committee ; and (2 ) that there was still allegedly pending before the Board a
petition filed by the Intervenor in October 1953, and resulting in a consent election,
which was , however, held invalid by a united States Court of Appeals in a Board enforce-
ment proceeding . Neither of these grounds is sufficient to bar an election under the
Board's established policy.
a The unit conforms to the stipulation of the parties.
B The Intervenor contends , alternatively, (1) that the eligibility list should be the same
as that used in the 1953 election mentioned above or that (2) the eligibility list should
include those persons employed immediately prior to a strike which began June 14, 1954,
and which is apparently still current. As to (1), no valid reason appears for adopting
the list used in the 1953 election , thereby disfranchising any current employees who were
not employed at the time of that election. As to (2), the record shows that at the time
of the hearing there were 128 employees, including 8 replacements for the strikers; that
there were 259 employees prior to the strike; and that there is no prospect of business
conditions improving in the foreseeable future so as to warrant the hiring of additional
employees. As the strike has been in progress for more than a year, we find, in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, that any replacements for the strikers are permanent
We find further that the Employer has no present need for additional workers , and so has
no unfilled vacancies . Accordingly, we find that those who struck on June 14, 1954, are
not eligible to vote unless they have been recalled by the eligibility date.
The Petitioner in Case No. 3-RC-1574 contends that the eligibility date should be the
date its petition was filed. However, no reason appears for believing that such an
eligibility date will assure a more representative electorate than will the more current
date customarily used by the Board. Accordingly , we find no merit in this contention and
will adhere to our usual practice in this regard.
Swift & Company and Local 508,_ Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Work-men of North America , AFL. Case No.
20-CA-1110. November 10, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge duly filed on June 13, 1955, .by Local 508, Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL,
114 NLRB No. 146.