Miratile Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 48 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by
a majority of the employees in the pooled group , which the Board, in
such circumstances , finds to be -a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Miratile Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International Union,
United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, affiliated with American Federation of Labor
and Congress of Industrial Organizations , Petitioner. Case
No. 13-RC-6427. July 13, 1959
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 Jewel G. Maher, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Elkhart, Indiana, plant. The Employer
and the Intervenor contend that their current contract covering "all
employees" is a bar to the petition. The contract was originally nego-
tiated in 1954, for a 1-year period, and, thereafter, in August 1955
and in September 1956, successively extended, with wage increases,
until September 1958. At the time the original contract and exten-
sions were negotiated, the Employer's only plant was located in
Chicago, Illinois. However, in September 1957 the Employer started
operations at its new plant at Elkhart, which is the subject of the
present petition. The following September a further wage increase
was negotiated and the basic agreement extended to September 1960.
The Elkhart plant, located 120 miles from the Chicago plant has its
1 The Employer 's contention as to the adequacy of the Petitioner 's compliance with
Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) involves administrative matters not cognizable in this pro-
ceeding. We are presently administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance.
See Desaulnier8 and Company, 115 NLRB 1025 , and Standard Cigar Company, 117
NLRB 852
2 Wallboard & Aluminum Workers Union intervened at the hearing on the basis of a
contract claim.
124 NLRB No. 10.
MIRATILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 49
own separate superintendent. Its work force is composed almost
wholly of new employees. There is little employee interchange be-
tween the plants. Certain clerical matters are handled by the Chicago
office for the Elkhart plant, but the payroll for production and main-
tenance employees is maintained locally. Although the products
manufactured at Elkhart are also made in Chicago, we think it clear
that the Elkhart plant is a new operation and not merely an accretion
to the Chicago plant. Consequently, as the 1954 contract and the
1955 and 1956 extensions were negotiated prior to the time the Elkhart
plant was established, they cannot, under well-settled law, be held to
cover the Elkhart plant for contract-bar purposes .3 As for the 1958
extension which was negotiated after the Elkhart operation com-
menced, it contained no modification of the original recognition clause
as set forth in the extended 1954 contract and did not otherwise
specifically include the Elkhart operation in its coverage. It merely
adopted as did the earlier extensions, the recognition clause set forth
in the original 1954 contract. Therefore, we find there is, for contract-
bar purposes, no written contract covering the Elkhart plant. The
Intervenor and Employer contend, however, that, in negotiating the
1958 extension, they dealt with the applicability of the contract to the
Elkhart plant and that, upon assurances by the Intervenor that it
represented a number of employees there, they considered the contract
as covering that plant. This arrangement, however, insofar as appli-
cable to the Elkhart plant was at most only an oral agreement which,
under Board rulings, cannot operate as a bar to a petition.' Accord-
ingly, we find that there is no contract barring the petition. The
Employer's motion to dismiss on this ground is hereby denied.' We
further find 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 Petitioner seeks, as noted above, a unit of production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Elkhart, Indiana, plant,
while the Employer and the Intervenor contend that, in view of the
integration and overall administrative control of the two plants, a
single unit of the Chicago and Elkhart operations is alone appro-
priate. There are factors indicating that a two-plant unit may be
appropriate. Thus, management policies for both plants are deter-
mined generally in Chicago. Accounting, inventory, sales, purchas-
ing, and other administrative matters are handled for both plants out
of Chicago. Moreover, a two-plant unit is, in fact, employerwide.
3 Fleming & Sons, Inc., 118 NLRB 1451, 1452. See, also, General Extrusion Company,
Inc., 121 NLRB 1165.
4 Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160; Columbia Broadcasting System,
Inc., 108 NLRB 1468, 1469.
6In view of our determination, we do not pass on whether the contract is not a bar
for other reasons urged.
52 5543-60--vol. 124-5
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is, therefore, a type of unit specified in the Act, and is presump-
tively an appropriate type of unit.6 However, the appropriateness of
a broad unit does not preclude the appropriateness of a smaller one
where there are, as here, factors that show that the smaller unit may
also be appropriate.' Thus, the Elkhart plant operations and the
employees there are under the separate direction and supervision of a
resident plant manager. The payroll for its production and mainte-
nance employees is maintained in its own office, and there is little, if
any, interchange of employees between the two plants which are about
120 miles apart. Also, like an employerwide unit, a plantwide unit is
presumptively appropriate.9 Moreover, the Board normally permits
employees at a new plant to decide whether or not they wish to be
separately represented.9 Accordingly, we believe that, in these cir-
cumstances, either a unit limited to the Elkhart employees, or a two-
plant unit, may be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
But, before making any final unit determination, we shall first ascer-
tairi the desires of the employees as expressed in. the election directed
hereinafter. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the follow-
ing voting group : all production and maintenance employees em-
ployed at the Employer's Elkhart, Indiana, plant, excluding all
clerical and confidential employees, guards, foremen and superin-
tendents, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. If a majority of the Employees vote for the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the Petitioner for that unit, which the Board, under
such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. If a 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 represented by the Intervenor as pa.rt of an enlployer-
wide, two-plant unit and the Regional Director will issue a certifica-
tion of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 See Beaumont Forging Company, 110 NLRB 2200, 2201-2202.
4 See F. IV. Saybolt & Company, 105 NLRB 510, 512.
8 Beaumont Forging Company, supra.
O•I+leming & Sons, Inc., 118 NLRB 1451, 1453; Rockingham Poultry Cooperative, Inc.,
113 NLRB 376, 378.
Swift & Company and United Packinghouse Workers of America,
AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-2877. July 13, 1959
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 Harold L. Hudson,
124 NLRB No. 14.