Packard-Bell Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 13, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1399 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

PACKARD-BELL COMPANY 1399 All employees at the Employer's Worcester, Massachusetts, plant, excluding maintenance employees, clerical employees, executives, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act .6 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] $ This is the unit set forth in the present collective -bargaining agreement. PACKARD-BELL COMPANY, SERVICE DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No . 1222, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 30-RC-W. February 13, 1953. 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 Clyde F. Waers, 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees 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. We find, in agreement with the parties, that the following em- ployees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees at the Employer's Denver, Colorado, service branch, excluding office and clerical employees and supervisors. 5. The Employer contends that the petition is premature and should be dismissed because of a contemplated expansion in the size of the unit. The Petitioner urges that the Employer's estimates as to the number of employees to be hired within the next year is specu- lative, and that a representative group of employees is now working in all classifications. The Employer started its Denver operations in July 1952. At the time of the hearing, January 12, 1953, it had 18 employees, having hired approximately 4 each month since August 1952. The Employer 102 NLRB No. 140. 1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD expects to hire about 4 more employees in January, and about 7 in February. It hopes to have 50 to 55 employees in the unit by July, and between 60 and 65 by December 1953. The Employer Mated that the Denver branch has need now for 35 employees, but because of the lack of suitable candidates, and the capacity of its training program, it has been unable to staff the branch to that extent. We believe that the working force which will be employed when the election directed herein is held, will be a substantial and representa- tive segment of the employees to be employed in the voting group for a reasonable time in the future. We therefore see no reason for depart- ing from the Board's usual policy of directing an immediate elec- tion., Accordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss is hereby denied. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] I Hollywood Maxwell Co ., 97 NLRB 70 ; Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division, 96 NLRB 1075.; Bell Aircraft Corporation, 96 NLRB 1211; R. P. Scherer Corporation, Hypospray Division, 95 NLRB 1426â€¢. DELTA MATCH CORPORATION 1 and UNITED GAS, COKE & CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 15-IBC-8692. February 13, 1953 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was hold before Fred A. Lewis, hearing 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 Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer contends that the Board lacks jurisdiction be- cause it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The record discloses that, although the plant is new and no goods have as yet been produced for shipment in interstate commerce, ma- chinery valued at approximately $1,600,000 has been purchased from Sweden, and chemicals valued at approximately $25,000 have been purchased from Europe. The Employer expects to produce goods 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 102 NLRB No. 149.