The Food Machinery and Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 369 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

PEERLESS PUMP DIVISION 369
In the systemwide unit herein found appropriate, we shall
include gas employees at Nyack, New York, previously not
represented by any labor organization, deeming them a natural
accretion to the Employer's services. Employees at the Em-
ployer's Tomkins Cove plant, however, voted in a consent
election held in Case No. 2-RC-4763 on June 30, 1952, and
chose the Electrical Workers as their exclusive collective-
bargaining representative. In accordance with Section 9 (c) (3)
of the amended Act, 9 we shall exclude these employees from
the instant unit and not permit them to vote in the election
directed herein. If, however, the Electrical Workers wins the
election among other employees of the Employer, the Electri-
cal Workers may bargain with the Employer for Tomkins
Cove employees as a part of a systemwide unit.
Upon the entire record in these cases, we find that the
following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All gas and electrical
employees in the Eastern and Western Divisions in the States
of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, including meter
readers and employees at Nyack, New York, but excluding
employees at the Tomkins Cove, New York, plant, office
clerical employees, salesmen, guards, and executives, fore-
men, and other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition filed by International
Chemical Workers Union , AFL, Local 143, in Case No. 2-RC-
5531.]
[Test of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9This section provides, in part: "No election shallbe directed in any bargaining unit or any
subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been
held "
PEERLESS PUMP DIVISION OF THE FOOD MACHINERY
AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION' and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-
2988. June 4, 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 Hailey,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing,
105 NLRB No. 38.
37 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [ Members, Houston , Styles,
and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor , Western Mechanics
Local No. 700, International Union of Mine , Mill and Smelter
Workers, plead their contract as a bar to this proceeding. The
contract , dated June 25, 1952, provides in article I, section 1,
that it shall be in effect until May 27, 1953, and renewed from
year to year thereafter
unless either party shall give written notice to the other of
its desire to change or modify said Agreement. Such
written notice shall be given between February 28, 1953,
and March 27, 1953 . . . whereupon it shall become the
duty of the parties to bargain collectively for the purpose
of arriving at a new Agreement. . . .
The petition herein was filed on March 10, 1953.2
As the contract enabled either party to effect its termina-
tion or modification by notice at any time between February
28 and March 27, 1953 , we find that the contract remained open
to a question concerning representation during that period, and
that the Mill B date of March 27, 1953 , is therefore the critical
date against which the timeliness of the petition must be deter-
mined . 3 As this petition was filed on March 10, 1953, we find
that it was timely filed and that the contract does not bar this
proceeding . Accordingly , we find that a question affecting com-
merce 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 parties stipulated, and we find , that the following em-
ployees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at
the Employer ' s Los Angeles , California , plant, including
factory janitors and shipping, stockroom , and test plant em-
ployees, but excluding office and clerical employees wherever
located, salesmen , office janitors , guards, timekeepers, blue-
print operators , draftsmen , all engineers such as design, sales,
progress , test, and mechanical engineers , and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2On March 17, 1953, the Intervenor notified the Employer of its desire to negotiate certain
modifications to their agreement in accordance with article I, section 1 The Employer, how-
ever , refused to enter into negotiations pending the Board's disposition of the petition
SGeneral Electric Company, 101 NLRB 619.