The Curtiss Way Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 642 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
purposes . If a majority of the employees in voting group
No. 1 also selects a labor organization , the Regional Di-
rector conducting the election is instructed to issue a cer-
tification of representatives to the labor organization se-
lected by the employees in that group , which the Board in
such circumstances also finds to be a separate unit ap-
propriate for collective -bargaining purposes . If the em-
ployees in either or both voting groups do not select a la-
bor organization , the Regional Director conducting the elec-
tion is instructed to issue a certification of results of elec-
tion with respect to such group or groups.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
THE CURTISS WAY CORPORATION and ALBIN J. MUZYCZKA,
Petitioner and LOCAL 102, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF BOOKBINDERS , AFL. Case No. 1-RD-141 . June 17,
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 Harold M.
Kowal , 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 National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel Members
Houston, Murdock , and Styles].
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 Petitioner asserts that the Union , which is currently
recognized by the Employer , is no longer the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of the Employer as defined in Section
9 (a) of the Act.
3. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed
on the ground that it resulted from collusion between the Em-
ployer and the Petitioner . The record shows that the Petitioner
circulated among employees on his shift during working hours
and secured signatures to the petition filed herein . Employees
on the Employer's other shift were contacted at the plant by
the Petitioner during their working hours . The Petitioner was
reprimanded for engaging in such activity during his working
hours but apparently no action was taken against him as to his
securing signatures to the petition on his own time from
members of the second shift . While the evidence clearly shows
that the Employer's supervisors had knowledge of the Peti-
tioner's activity , we have previously held that knowledge , alone,
105 NLRB No. 86.
CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA 643
of a decertification petition by an Employer is insufficient to
establish the collusion which the Union alleges. ' Therefore, as
the record contains no substantial evidence that the Employer
inspired or fostered the instant petition, we find no merit in
the Union ' s contention that the petition should be dismissed on
this ground.
The Union also asserts that a contract between it and the
Employer bars this petition . This contract , effective on
November 1, 1951 , contained a termination date of January 31,
1953, in the absence of written notice of intent to change
tendered by either party not less than 2 months prior to the
termination date. This notice was given by the Union on
November 22 , 1952. Although the contract also provides that
"Pending determination of conditions of new agreement the
terms and conditions of this agreement shall remain in effect,"
the Board has consistently ruled that a contract , under such
circumstances , is one of indefinite duration which cannot bar
a representation petition . 2 We accordingly reject the Union's
contention.
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production employees in the bindery , shipping, and
mailing departments of the Employer ' s printing and binding
plant at Meriden, Connecticut , including shippers , mailers,
helpers on machines , truckers , and general utility helpers,
but excluding all employees in the pressroom , composing room,
and foundry , watchmen-janitors , baler-janitors , executives,
office clerical employees , guards , salesmen , professionalem-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'See Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, 102 NLRB 134.
2 See The Fuller Automobile Company, 88 NLRB 1452.
CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION , CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 2-RC-5758 . June 17, 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 Arthur A.
Greenstein , hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
105 NLRB No. 87.