Wales-Strippit Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 951 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

WALES-STRIPPIT CORPORATION 951
she also performs the duties of a sales clerk on occasion. In accord-
ance with our usual practice for retail stores, we will include her in
the unit.'
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Miami
Beach store constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All soda
dispensers, food workers, busboys, dishwashers, soda porters, sales-
clerks, stock clerks, bookkeeper, and porters, excluding the store mana-
ger, assistant store managers, soda managers, assistant soda managers,'
pharmacists, supervisors, and guards within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Belk's Department Store of Savannah, Ga., Inc, 93 NLRB 729
7 The record shows, and the parties agree, that the excluded managers are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. It appears that certain sales clerks are also designated
as managers of the departments in which they work. They have no supervisory authority,
and no one contends that they are supervisors We find that they are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, and they are included in the unit.
WALES-STRIPPIT CORPORATION and LODGE 1691 , DISTRICT LODGE 76,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 3-RC-1447. November 19,195 .
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 Murray S. Freeman, hear-
ing 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 certain
employees 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 for the following
reasons:
The Employer contends that its 2-year contract, entered into on
September 1, 1953, with Workmen's Security Union, an independent
labor organization, is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner con-
tends that, as the contracting union is.defunct and, therefore, incapable
of administering the agreement, the contract is not a bar.
The record discloses that on August 3, 1954, pursuant to posted
notices, a regular meeting of Workmen's Security Union was attended
110 NLRB No. 153.
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by 60 employees including the 4 officers.,, After the membership voted
58 to 1 to dissolve the Workmen's Security Union, a representative of
the Petitioner, who had previously been invited, arrived at the meet-
ing, addressed the group, and departed.2 At this point, the employees
voted, 58 to 1, to affiliate with the Petitioner. Thereafter, by acclama-
tion, the four officers of the Workmen's Security Union were elected
to corresponding positions with the Petitioner. Approximately a week
later, the officers of the new organization applied to the Petitioner for
a charter which was subsequently issued, establishing the organization
as Local 1691.3 The record discloses that since that time, the Employer
has held the employees' checked off dues in escrow; that no meetings
of the Workmen's Security Union have been held; that no grievances
have been processed; that all but 1 or 2 of the employees have signed
cards designating the Petitioner as their representative; and that no
representative of the dissolved union has attempted to administer
the contract in any manner.4 Moreover, although the Workmen's
Security Union was served with notice of the hearing, it did not
attempt to intervene, nor did it appear at the hearing.
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that Workmen's
Security Union is defunct, and, therefore, not capable of administer-
ing its contract with the Employer. Accordingly, we find that the
existing contract does not bar a representation election at this time.5
The Employer contends that, if the Board finds the contract no
bar to an election, the Petitioner should, in the event it is certified, be
compelled to administer the agreement. We deem it unnecessary to
pass upon this issue in a representation proceeding for the reasons
set forth in Boston Machine Works Company.'
4. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
North Tonawanda, New York, operations, excluding office clerical
1 There are approximately 146 employees in the production and maintenance unit.
Normal attendance at these meetings had approximated 25 employees.
3 No contention is made , nor is there any evidence tending to show that the Petitioner
took any part in the dissolution vote
3 The charter was paid for out of the old workmen 's Security Union treasury.
4 In fact, both parties to the proceeding concede that the workmen 's Security Union
is defunct
5 Standard Brass Manufacturing Company , 101 NLRB 1032 at 1033; Filtrol Corpora-
tion, 109 NLRB 1071 ; Universal Utilitties , Inc, 108 NLRB 58; and cases cited therein.
But see also, Charles Beck Machine Corporation, 107 NLRB 874.
6 89 NLRB 59 . See also , Arthur C Harvey Company, 110 NLRB 338. While agree-
ing with the majority decision here , Chairman Farmer deems the issue presented sub-
stantially different from that of the Boston Machine case , and therefore finds it unneces-
sary now to express any opinion as to the rule of that decision . Members Rodgers and
Beeson believe that , under the circumstances of this case , if the Petitioner is certified
as a result of the election directed herein, it should be deemed to assume the rights and
obligations conferred by the existing contract
MORRIS AND HORNER, INC. 953
employees , guards, professional employees, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1 The parties stipulated to the appropriateness of the unit.
MORRIS AND HORNER , INC. and LOCAL 900, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS , A. F. L. Case No. 10-CA-1747. Novem-
ber 22, 1954
Decision and Order
On December 10, 1953, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial ac-
tion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended
that the complaint be dismissed in that respect. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the record in the case,
and finds merit in the Respondent's exception to the assertion of juris-
diction over its operations.
The record discloses i that the Respondent is a Tennessee corpora-
tion having its principal office and place of business at Clinton, Ten-
nessee, where it is engaged in the sale and repair of automobiles and
trucks. It operates under a franchise agreement from the Ford Motor
Company. During a representative period beginning June 3, 1952,
and ending May 3, 1953, the Respondent purchased motor vehicles,
parts, and accessories in the approximate value of $245,000 which
were shipped to its place of business from points outside the State
of Tennessee. During the same period the Respondent sold motor
vehicles, parts, and accessories in the approximate value of $19,400
which were shipped from its place of business to points outside the
State.
Upon the foregoing facts we find that it will not effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Respondent, in view
1 The facts as to the Respondent's business originally appearing in the record have been
supplemented by a stipulation entered into by the parties since the hearing and made a
part of the record herein.
110 NLRB No. 159.