Hyster Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 27, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 937 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of HYSTER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, WILLAMETTE LOCAL 63, PETITIONER Case No. 19-R-1708.=Decided February 27, 1947 Mr. Robert Sabin, of Portland, Oreg., for the Employer. Mr. James Land ye, of Portland, Oreg., for the Petitioner. Mr. Harry George, of Portland, Oreg., for the Intervenor. Mr. David C. Sachs, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Port- land, Oregon, on November 7 and 8, 1946, before Eugene M. Purver, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition, as amended, and the motion was referred to the Board for ruling. For reasons indicated in Section III, infra, the motion is hereby granted. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Hyster Company, an Oregon corporation , is engaged in the manu- facture of cranes , hoists, gasoline driven lift trucks, and straddle trucks. These proceedings are concerned with its plant at Portland, Oregon. The value of the raw materials used annually by the Em- ployer and consisting mainly of steel plates, castings and sub-assem- blies of motors and transmissions , is more than $4,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent is shipped to its plant in Portland from points outside the State of Oregon. Annually the value of its fin- ished products amounts to more than $8,000,000, of which approxi- mately 85 percent is sold outside the State of Oregon. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 72N.L. R B,No . 160 937 938, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization , claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. United Shop Employees of Hyster Company , unaffiliated , herein called the Intervenor , is a labor organization , claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On May 15, 1942, the Intervenor, after prevailing in a consent elec- tion conducted under Board auspices, was designated by the Regional Director as collective bargaining representative of all production and maintenance employees of the Employer. Thereafter, on December 14, 1942, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a contract covering these employees. This contract was to remain in effect until November 30, 1944, and from year to year thereafter unless terminated by notice given by either party within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the sixty (60) days before any anniversary date. The Petitioner, on December 27, 1945, requested recognition from the Employer as the bargaining agent of the employees in the machine shop, and on January 10, 1946, filed its petition in this case seeking to be certified as the representative of this group.' On February 25, 1946, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a new contract covering the same bargaining unit as that embraced by their previous contract, a grouping of all production and maintenance employees. This con- tract was made effective from December 1, 1945, and is to remain in operation until November 30, 1947, and from year to year thereafter unless terminated by notice in the same manner as provided in the previous contract. At the hearing on November 8, 1946, the Petitioner amended its petition to allege that the appropriate unit consists of all production and maintenance employees. The Employer contends that the con- tract executed on February 25, 1946, is a bar to the petition in its present posture. We agree. At the time the contract was made the only adverse claim, as evi- denced by the petition in its original form, was one for the severance of a craft or departmental unit. The amendment of the petition at the hearing was the first time the Petitioner advanced a claim to repre- sent the production and maintenance employees, who constitute a unit much larger and substantially different from that sought in the orig- inal petition. Thus, the amendment was, in effect, a new claim or 1 These employees comprise less than one-third of the total number of production and maintenance employees. HYSTER COMPANY 939 petition, clearly unseasonable with respect to the existing agreement. For this reason, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the peti- tion for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Hyster Company, Portland, Oregon, filed by International Associa- ation of Machinists, Willamette Local 63, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.