Advanced Manufacturing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 722 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Advanced Manufacturing , Inc. and Gilbert McFarland, Peti-
tioner and International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , UAW-AFL-
CIO, and its Local 509. Case No. 01-RD-345. December 10, 1957
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 Ben Grodsky, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 3
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's 1214
W. 25th Street, Harbor City, California, truck and signal light manu-
facturing plant, including two leadmen, inspection, shipping, receiv-
' The Petitioner asserts that the Union, currently certified as representative of the
employees in the unit designated in the petition, is no longer the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of such employees as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
2 The Union contends that its contract with the Employer dated March 15, 1957, consti-
tutes it bar to the petition herein. Although this contract was fully negotiated and put
in writing by the parties, and its terms and conditions were placed in effect, it has never
been signed by either of the parties. The reason it remains unexecuted appears in a letter
from the l]mployer to the Union in which it indicated that the contract would be signed
at such time as legal ownership of the Employer was established and directors and of-
ficers elected, provided that control of the Employer remains in S & 11T Lanip Company.
Under these circumstances, it appears that more than the performance of a mere ministerial
act remains before the contract is signed. For this reason, as well as the long interval
which has elapsed without the contract being signed, we find this case clearly distinguish-
able from those in which the Board has made exceptions to its general rule that unsigned
contracts do not bar elections . See American Smelting and Refining Company, 118 NLRB
915 ; Oswego Fall& Corp., 110 NLRB 621. In accord with our usual rule, we find that the
Union's contract does not bar an election herein. Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing
Company, 110 NLRB 334.
3 The parties agree as to the appropriate unit.
119 NLEB No. 101.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY 723
ing and stores employees, but excluding office clerical. employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company ( Savannah River Plant)
and Local Union No. 1909, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-986.
December 11, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard H. Frahm, 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the electrical
maintenance employees at the Employer's Savannah River plant.
It contends that these employees are entitled to separate representa-
tion as a craft group within the meaning of the American Potash
Company 1 craft bargaining principle. The Employer asserts that
its maintenance employees are not true craftsmen but are.instead a
heterogeneous grouping of operating and servicing specialists trained
primarily to perform the particular functions required in its extraor-
dinary type of manufacturing process. It therefore moved to dismiss
the petition on the ground that these employees do not meet the craft
standards of the American Potash decision and that, in any event, the
Board ought not permit separate representation of craft employees
= American Potash & Chemical Corp ., 107 NLRB 1418.
119 NLRB No. 99.