Hemisphere Steel Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 56 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Local Union No. 568 has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of
the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Hemisphere Steel Products, Inc. and Local 810, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-1119f3.
April 7, 1961
DECISION ON APPEAL
On January 18, 1961, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Re-
gional Director for the Second Region, seeking an election in a unit
of all production and maintenance men at the Employer's Brooklyn,
New York, factory. On February 1, 1961, the Regional Director dis-
missed the petition as untimely filed during the insulated period of the
collective-bargaining agreement. Pursuant to the Board's Rules and
Regulations , the Petitioner filed an appeal from the Regional Direc-
tor's dismissal of the petition, asserting in substance that the Regional
Director erred in interpreting the contract as expiring on March 18,
1961, rather than on March 19, 1961, and therefore erroneously ruled
that the present petition was untimely filed with the Board. For the
reasons set forth hereinafter, the Regional Director' s dismissal is
sustained.
OPINION
The case presented by this appeal is whether the contract is to be
construed as expiring on March 18 or 19, 1961. The facts show that
the contract extends from March 19, 1959, "to March 19, 1961."
The Board has held in conformity with the general rule of construc-
tion, that in the absence of specific expression to the contrary, a con-
tract in effect until a day certain is to be construed as not including the
date named after the word "until." Williams Laundry Company, 97
NLRB 995. See also Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 3d edition, page
3377, cited in footnote 3 of the above-named case. As noted in that
case, there is nothing in the present contract to indicate a contrary in-
tention. We conclude, accordingly, contrary to the contention of the
Petitioner, that the Regional Director properly construed the contract
as not including the date named after the word "to," which we regard
as synonymous with the word "until," and that in dismissing the peti-
tion herein, which was filed on the 60th day preceding the expiration
131 NLRB No. 13.
PROCTOR-SILEX CORP. 57
date of the contract,' the Regional Director correctly applied these
principles.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision on Appeal.
I See Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 1000.
Proctor-Silex Corp . and United Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers of America (UE), Petitioner . Case No. 5-RC-3308.
April 7, 1961
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 Louis Aronin, hearing offi-
cer. 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 2 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved herein claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent the employees of the Employer
in a unit composed of all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, plants at 4000 Coolidge Avenue
and 4100 Pistoria Road. The Employer contends that separate pro-
duction and maintenance units at the two plants are alone appropriate.
The Employer manufactures electrical products at the above plants.
Plant No. 1, which is engaged in the manufacture of electrical con-
trols, is referred to as the controls division. Plant No. 2, which manu-
factures housewares, is known as the housewares division. These
plants are about 500 feet apart, and each is under separate supervision.
There is no employee interchange. Each plant has its own shipping
and receiving department, and does its own hiring. There are sepa-
rate seniority lists for each job. However, payrolls and records are
prepared in one plant for both plants, a common switchboard serves
I At the hearing, the Employer sought to litigate the adequacy of the Petitioner's show-
ing of interest with respect to any unit or units found appropriate by the Board, and
moved on the ground of inadequate showing to dismiss the petition. The hearing officer
referred this motion to the Board. The sufficiency of the Petitioner's showing of interest
is an administrative matter and is not subject to litigation in this proceeding. Moreover,
we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of interest in this matter
is adequate. O. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. The Employer's motion is,
therefore, denied.
2 Chairman Frank W. McCulloch did not participate in this proceeding.
131 NLRB No. 9.