Southern Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 784 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Southern Manufacturing Company, Petitioner and International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 26-I?M-147.
September 03, 1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before J. Edward
Wise, a Hearing Officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. As a result of a Board-conducted election, the Union, on Octo-
ber 4, 1961, was certified as the collective-bargaining representative
for production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Walnut
Ridge, Arkansas, plant. Bargaining for a contract began October 6,
1961, and 13 bargaining sessions were held prior to July 17, 1962, at
which time the Employer informed the Union that it was ceasing
operations for economic reasons the following week. Thereafter the
plant closed down. In September 1962 the Union filed charges, which
were amended November 6, 1962, alleging that the Employer had
failed to bargain in that it had decided July 12, 1962, to close its plant
and did not notify the Union of this until July 17. On October 22,
1962, the Employer notified the Union that it was going to reopen the
plant and invited further negotiations. Operations actually recom-
menced the first week in November. On November 7, 1962, a settle-
ment agreement was signed by the parties and approved by the
Regional Director. Thereafter, bargaining sessions were held on
November 30, 1962, and February 19, and April 16, 1963.
On March 11, 1963, an RD petition was filed. It was dismissed by
the Regional Director on the ground that it was untimely filed. No
appeal was taken from the dismissal. On April 9, 1963, the instant
petition was filed and was subsequently dismissed by the Regional Di-
rector on the same ground as relied upon by him in his dismissal of
the earlier petition. On appeal, his dismissal was reversed, and the
petition was reinstated.
In Mar-Jac Poultry the Board indicated that on the facts of that
case and in future cases revealing similar inequities, it would grant
1 The Hearing Officer referred to the Board the Union 's motions to dismiss the petition on
the grounds that (1) the Board 's policy set forth in Mar-Jac Poultry Company , Inc, 136
NLRB 785, is applicable in the facts and circumstances herein; and ( 2) the instant case
is controlled by Case No . 26-RD-101, a decertification petition involving the same unit,
which was dismissed by the Regional Director on the basis of the Mar-Jac policy. For
the reasons hereinafter discussed these motions are hereby denied.
144 NLRB No. 73.
FLUSHING MANUFACTURING SERVICE 785
the union a period of at least 1 year of actual bargaining from the
date of a settlement agreement.
Contrary to the Union we do not believe that the equities of the
present case warrant the application of the policy enunciated in Mar-
Jac Poultry. Where as here, there was over 9 months prior to the
plant shutdown and over 5 months subsequent to the settlement agree-
ment, a total of over 14 months, during which the Union had oppor-
tunity to negotiate a contract, the purpose of the Board's certification
year rule has been fulfilled. Upon consideration of all the circum-
stances of this case, including the facts that the lapse in negotiations
was occasioned solely by the Employer's cessation of operations for a
period of about 4 months, that the settlement of unfair labor practices
related to the Employer's refusal to bargain as to such cessation, and
that the Union had the benefit of more than a year under its certifica-
tion in which to negotiate, we are persuaded that the Union had a
reasonable period of time subsequent to the settlement agreement in
which to conclude a contract with the Employer.
Accordingly, as no impediment exists to an immediate election and
the Union is claiming to represent the employees in the certified unit,
we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of certain 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 accordance with the stipulation of the parties at the
hearing, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, including leadmen, em-
ployed by the Employer at its plant near Walnut Ridge, Arkansas,
but excluding all other employees, including office clerical employees,
chief inspector and production control employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
Flushing Manufacturing Service and Edsel O. Hartz. Case No.
7-CA-4086. September 25, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 26, 1963, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
144 NLRB No. 76.