Advance Pattern Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 209 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of ADVANCE PATTERN COMPANY, EMPLOYER and PRINT-
ING SPECIALTIES AND PAPER CONVERTERS UNION No. 362, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 20-RC-116.Decided August 27 , 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. 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, a New York corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture, distribution, and sale of paper dress patterns. All patterns
are manufactured in its New York City establishment. Stockrooms
are maintained in San Francisco and Chicago. Only the San Fran-
cisco stockroom is involved in this proceeding. Patterns shipped from
the New York office to San Francisco have an annual value in excess
of $65,000. The value of patterns shipped by the San Francisco office
to points outside the State of California is in excess of $15,000 annually.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. We find that no 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 entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss
the petition herein on the ground that the Petitioner had not re-
quested recognition as exclusive bargaining agent before filing the
79 N. L R. B., No. 30
209
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
petition, and that, in the absence of such demand, the requirements of
Section 9 (c) (1) 1 had not been met.
The petition showed on its face that no demand for recognition
had been made by the Petitioner, and that the Employer had not re-
fused recognition before the petition was filed. The petition con-
tains these questions : "Has the Petitioner notified the employer of
claim that a question concerning representation has arisen ?" and "Has
the employer failed to recognize Petitioner ?" Both questions were
answered in the negative.
As the Petitioner has not alleged that it requested recognition and
that the Employer declined, prior to the filing of the petition, to
recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees here involved, as required by Section 9 (c) (1) of the-
Act, as amended, we shall dismiss the petition.2
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petittion filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER GRAY took no.part iii the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Order.
I The pertinent portion of this new section provides that : °
"Whenever a petition shall have been filed , in accordance with such regulations as may be-
prescribed by the Boaid-
(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting
in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees ( i) wish to be represented
for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative
as the representative defined in Section 9 ( a) the Board shall investigate such
petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting
commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice " ( Emphasis
supplied.)
Section 9 ( c) of the original Act, which contained no provision with respect to the filing
of a petition , provided that :
"Whenever a question affecting commerce arises concerning the representation of em-
ployees, the Board may investigate such controversy and certify to the parties , in writing,
the name or names of the representatives that have been designated or selected. In ant
such investigation , the Board shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice,
either in conjunction with a proceeding under Section 10 or otherwise , and may take a
secret ballot of employees , or utilize any other suitable method to ascertain such repre-
sentatives "
2 After the filing of the petition , the Union requested recognition of the manager of the
San Francisco office. The manager, at that time and again at the hearing , claimed lack of
authority to recognize the Petitioner , stating that all her orders came from the New York
office of the Employer In Matter of The S-P Manufacturing Corporation, 75 N. L. R. B.
701; Matter of Buckeye Steel Castings Company, 75 N L R. B. 982; and Matter of John
Boyle & Sons, 75 N. L R B. 1166. we held that a question of representation was-presented
if, at the time of the hearing, or at any time prior thereto , the Employer had refused to
grant recognition . The question of the authority of the San Francisco manager or of the
effect of her refusal to grant recognition is not at issue here , however , as the cited cases
are distinguishable from the instant case The petitions in the cited cases were filed prior
to the effective date of the amended Act , and were thus governed by the practice existing
at that time , whereas the petition in the instant case was filed on March 17, 1948, and
must therefore be considered in the light of the standards set up by the amended Act