Higgins, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 911 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

HIGGINS, INC. 911
HIGGINS, INC. and MARINE SHOP AND SHIPYARD LABORERS , LOCAL 821,
AFL, PETITIONER
HIGGINS, INC. and LOCAL 1244, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS
AND PAPERHANGERS , AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 15-RC-700 and
15-RC-705. December 9,1952
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On October 28, 1952, the Acting Regional Director issued his report
on objections. He found that the objections filed by the Employer to
the stipulated elections of October 7, 1952, were based on Bonwit
Teller, Inc. v N. L. R. B., 197 F. 2d 640 (C. A. 2), and failed to raise
any issue not previously considered and found to be without merit
in the Board's Decision and Order of August 27, 1952.1 He accord-
ingly recommended that the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the
Employer filed exceptions to the report on objections, in substance
repeating its objections.
The Board has considered the report on objections, the exceptions
thereto, and the entire record in the case, and finds that the exceptions
do not raise any substantial or material issues with respect to the
elections. Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the Acting Regional
Director's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the fol-
lowing additions :
The Employer contends that the Board erroneously set aside the
earlier elections and had no authority to order the elections to which
the Employer now objects. It contends that the court decision in
Bonwit Teller supports its position. However, that decision involved
enforcement of a final order preventing unfair labor practices, and
specifically the question of whether unfair labor practices had been
committed. In this representation proceeding, as we have frequently
held,2 the Board is concerned, not with the possible commission of
unfair labor practices, but rather with the conditions under which
Board elections should be conducted so as to reflect the employees'
free choice. Here, in the earlier election which the Board set aside,
a free choice was rendered impossible regardless of the question of
unfair labor practices. Accordingly, the Board set aside the elec-
tions. As the later elections were therefore validly ordered, the
Board hereby overrules the Employer's exceptions.
As the tallies of ballots show that a majority of all the valid votes
in each case were cast for each of the respective Petitioners, we shall
certify those organizations as the collective-bargaining representative
of all the Employer's employees in the agreed appropriate units.
1 100 NLRB 829.
' For example , General Shoe Corporation ( Marman Bag Plant ), 97 NLRB 499.
101 NLRB No. 157.
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Certification of Representatives
IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that Marine Shop and Shipyard Laborers,
Local 821, AFL, and Local 1244, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators
and Paperhangers, AFL, have each been designated and selected
by a majority of the employees in the respective appropriate units
as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and
that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, each organization is the
exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
RADIO INDUSTRIES, INC. and LOCAL 1031, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L. and EMPLOYEES' COMMITTEE,
RADIO INDUSTRIES, INC., PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
RADIO INDUSTRIES , INC. and LOCAL 1031, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L., PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 13-CA-
776 and 13-RC-1339. December 10,1952
Decision and Order
On March 10, 1952, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and had not
engaged in others, and recommending that it cease and desist from the
unfair labor practices found and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner also recommended that the representation peti-
tion be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
' On May 21 , 1952 , the Respondent requested leave to file a brief in reply to that pre-
viously filed by the Union . The motion was accompanied by the proposed reply brief. As
no obj ection has been raised to the request, it is hereby granted.
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
101 NLRB No. 158.