Hamilton Watch Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 379 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

HAMILTON WATCH COMPANY 379
If the majority of the employees in the above-described voting
group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of represen-
tatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under the
circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining. If the majority of the employees in the voting group cast
their ballots for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to be included in the existing unit currently represented
by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification
of results of election to that effect. If the majority of the employees
in the voting group cast their ballots for neither labor organization,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be unrepresented
by any labor organization appearing on the ballot, and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Hamilton Watch Company and International Association of
Machinists, District #98, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2648.
July 28,1955
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 Julius Topol, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. The Employer contends that its current contract with the Inter-
venor constitutes a bar to the instant proceedings. The Petitioner
contends that the contract contains an illegal union-security provision
and, thus, could not serve as a bar herein. At the hearing and in
its brief the Intervenor, although asserting that the contract does not
'In view of our disposition of the contract -bar issue of this case , it is unnecessary for
us to rule upon the hearing officer's refusal to admit evidence pertaining to the enforce-
ment of the union -security provisions of the contract between the Employer and the
Intervenor.
F Hamilton Watch Workers Union (affiliated with the American Watch Workers Union),
herein called the Intervenor , was permitted to intervene on the basis of its current con-
tract with the Employer covering the employees here involved.
113 NLRB No. 46.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contain an unlawful union-security provision, waived the assertion of
the contract as a bar.
The contract in issue here will expire October 1, 1955, and has an
automatic renewal date 60 days prior thereto (August 1, 1955). In
these circumstances, since the Mill-B date of the contract is less than
30 days from the date of issuance of this decision, we find that the
contract is not a bar.' Accordingly, we need not pass upon the con-
tentions involving the validity of the union-security provisions of the
contract. We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we so find, that the following described
unit is an appropriate one for purposes of collective bargaining herein :
All production and maintenance employees at the Hamilton Watch
Company's Columbia Avenue, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, plant and
Engineering and Research Laboratory building, Wheatland Avenue,
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, including inspectors (other than roving in-
spectors) on both departmental and inspection department payrolls,
factory clerical employees, service department clerks, factory stock-
room clerks, clerks in the packing and shipping sections of the traffic
department, building and ground maintenance employees, cafeteria
employees, boilerhouse employees, and training school employees who
are being trained for production and maintenance jobs, but excluding
roving inspectors, the head cook in the cafeteria, all engineers and
engineering, research, and research development employees at both
the Columbia Avenue plant and the Wheatland Avenue Engineering
and Research Laboratory building, office clerical employees, secretaries
to supervisory personnel, production control employees, mechanical
department employees, chemical and metallurgical department em-
ployees, product design department employees, machine experimental
department employees, model department employees, physical re-
search department employees, engineering records department em-
ployees, metal research department employees, industrial engineering
• department employees, personnel department employees, technicians
and chemists in the works laboratory, medical department employees,
guards, factory payroll clerks, all main office employees (including
office clerical employees, sales employees, and supervisors), and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
3 Remington Rand Inc., 109 NLRB 622; Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 102 NLRB 800, 802-803.