Wilson & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 769 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

WILSON & CO., INC. 769
WILSON & Co., INC.' and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO , PETITIONER . Case No. 2-RC-5304. January 28, 1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Meyer G. Reines, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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 2
3. The Intervenor contends that a current contract between it and
the Employer is a bar to this petition. There is no merit to this con-
tention. Following a Board certification on January 3, 1951, the
Intervenor and the Employer executed a contract effective as of Jan-
uary 22, 1951, for 1 year. This contract contained an automatic
renewal clause providing that it should be renewed "from year to year
thereafter, subject to reopening by either party on written notice
mailed at least sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary date." This
contract was automatically renewed on January 22, 1952, and likewise
no written notice reopening the same was given by either party before
November 23, 1952, the second annual "Mill B" date of this contract.
However, as it appears that the petition herein was filed on October
31, 1952, some 23 days before the "Mill B" date, we find that the
contract is not a bar to this petition.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.
4. The following groups of employees at the Employer's Stamford,,
Connecticut, plant may constitute units appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act,
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
z Local 191 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL , was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract interest.
8 Burke Millwork Co , Inc., 100 NLRB 522.
102 NLRB No. 67.
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excluding from each group office, clerical, and professional employees,
salesmen, guards, department managers, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act 4
Group (a) All truck drivers.
Group (b) : All meat cutters and luggers.
If a majority in each of the two groups vote for the same labor
organization, they will be deemed to have indicated a desire to consti-
tute a single unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the labor organization so chosen for
such unit, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority in either
group vote for a labor organization not also selected by the other, the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of represent-
atives to the labor organization so chosen for a unit composed of the
employees in such group, which the Board in such circumstances finds
to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
A The Petitioner desires to represent a plantwide unit including all truck drivers, meat
cutters, and loggers . In the alternative it is willing to represent two separate units for
the outside and inside employees . The Intervenor relies on the bargaining history in this
plant under its contract with the Employer , contending that the present unit of the truck
drivers it represents is appropriate . The Employer is opposed to separate units for its
outside and inside employees.
The record indicates that in the Employer 's Eastern District , which includes Metropolitan
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut , it has several plants where the Petitioner or the
Intervenor represent plantwide units . It also has some plants, particularly the larger
plants, where its employees are represented in separate units for its outside employees and
its inside employees . As the truck drivers are a group such as the Board has frequently
found may constitute either a separate unit or be part of a plantwide unit , we find that
either a plantwide unit or separate units for the inside and outside employees may be
appropriate in this case . Armour & Co . ( Los Angeles plant ), 100 NLRB No . 129. Cf.
Swift & Co., 99 NLRB 1497.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY and LOCAL 453, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
EI,EOTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO. Case No.
R-CA-2047. January 09, 1953
Decision and Order
On October 14, 1952, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease kind desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel,
the Respondent, and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report, and supporting briefs.
102 NLRB No. 72.