The Mennen Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 348 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make Daniel Doyle whole for any loss of pay incurred as a result of our
failure to hire him.
ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated ............. By. ............................................................ .......... .
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted&for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
THE MENNEN COMPANY and JAMES GRAHAM, Petitioner
and LOCAL 649, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL . Case No . 4-UD-2. April 21, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene
M. Levine, hearing officer. 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 Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. On July 21, 1953, the Petitioner, an employee of the Em-
ployer, filed a petition seeking rescission of the authority of the
Union to enter into a union - security agreement made pursuant
to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of toiletries.
Before 1953, the Employer carried on production operations in
a plant at Newark, New Jersey, and warehousing and shipping
operations in a separate plant at South Kearney, New Jersey.
In February 1953, the Employer transferred the operations of
the Newark and Kearney plants to a new plant at Morristown,
New Jersey. While still operating at the separate locations, on
November 15, 1951, and February 8, 1952, respectively, the
Union and the Employer executed separate collective-bargaining
contracts covering warehouse employees at South Kearney,
and production - maintenance employees at Newark . Both these
contracts will expire on May 15, 1954.
In view of the fact that we are on the same date directing
a representation election, and that the current contract contain-
ing the union-security clause will expire on May 15, 1954, we
find that no useful purpose would be served by directing a
108 NLRB No. 61
THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 349
deauthorization election at this time .' Accordingly , we shall
dismiss the petition without prejudice to the right of the Peti-
tioner to refile at any time that a deauthorization election may
be appropriate.2
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'Member Murdock agrees that no useful purpose would be served by directing a union-
deauthorization election now, but desires to make clear that in his view the sole reason is
that if a rival union wins the representation election directed today in 4-RC-2197, the issue
in the instant case would be moot. Should the incumbent Intervenor win the RC election,
however, then the issue herein would not be moot and it would be the appropriate time to
hold the UD election (toward the end of the present contract which expires May 15) under
the views expressed in Member Murdock's dissenting opinion in Great Atlantic and Pacific
Tea Company, 100 NLRB 1494. If the instant UD petition were held to await the outcome of
the RC election, it would make it unnecessary for another UD petition to be filed then in the
event of the Intervenor's victory.
2 In view of our disposition of the case, we find it unnecessary to discuss the various
contentions and motions of the Union.
THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
9-RC-2163. April 21, 1954
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 Orville E.
Andrews, hearing officer. The hearing officer 's ruling 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.'
3. 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 for the
following reasons:
The Employer strenuously contends that the investigation
provisions under Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act4 and Rule 101.17 of
IFor reasons hereinafter noted, the Employer's motion to terminate the proceeding made
at the beginning of the hearing was correctly denied by the hearing officer.
2 As the record and the Employer's brief adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties, the Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
3The United Steelworkers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene at the hearing.
4 Insofar as it is pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act provides:
Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may
be prescribed by the Board- (A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual
108 NLRB No. 72.