Alloy Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1201 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

ALLOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1201
For the same reasons that we have found inappropriate the
separate units sought by the Petitioner, we find that a single
unit of the maintenance and garage employees is likewise
inappropriate. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
HENRY L. PEIRONE AND JOHN A NEVELL, d/b/a ALLOY
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE NO. 942,
AFL.' Case No. 19-RM-118. February 19, f954
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 E. R. Ormsbee,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer asserts that the instant proceeding is
barred because of a consent-election agreement between it and
the Union.
On August 27, 1953, the Union requested recognition from
the Employer as bargaining representative of its employees.
The Employer declined recognition and filed the instant peti-
tion on September 10, 1953. Later, the parties duly executed,
on October 22, 1953, an agreement for consent election which
was approved by the Regional Director. At a conference held
on November 12, 1953, the day of the proposed election, the
parties disputed the voting eligibility and unit placement of
certain individuals. Thereupon, failing to reach agreement
with the Employer on these questions, the Union stated that it
was withdrawing from the consent election. In view of the
Union's withdrawal, the field examiner in charge of the election
canceled it. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a notice
of hearing and on November 30 a hearing was held on the
instant petition.
The Employer contends that the cancellation of the election
and the scheduling of the hearing were improper under the
Board's Rules and Regulations. At the hearing, the Employer
moved that the hearing be "dismissed," and that an order be
issued staying the instant proceeding for a period of 1 year
thereafter, barring the Union during that period from making
'The Employer's and Union' s names appear as corrected at the hearing
107 NLRB No. 257.
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any demand for recognition or for an election . This motion was
referred to the Board.
While the Board ' s Rules make no express provisions for
withdrawal of a party from a consent - election agreement, we
do not believe that the withdrawal of the Union from the instant
election agreement requires us to invalidate the subsequent
proceedings. In this case, we are unable to perceive in what
respect the Employer was prejudiced by the holding of the
hearing on its petition . The purpose of the hearing was to adduce
evidence on disputed issues as to the unit placement and voting
eligibility of certain employees, which are proper matters for
investigation by the Board. The Employer contends that the
failure to conduct the consent election when it was originally
scheduled deprived its employees of their right to an ex-
peditious settlement of the representation question. However,
the relief requested by the Employer would further postpone
the settlement of this question.
Even if we treat the Employer's motion as a request to with-
draw its petition, the granting of such request is within the
Board's discretion.: As the Union has made a showing of
interest sufficient to maintain a petition in its own right and
desires an immediate election , we regard the Union as in the
posture of a cross-petitioner and therefore do not believe that
the policies of the Act would be effectuated by granting the
Employer's motion.I We find, therefore, that a question af-
fecting 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 parties stipulated that the appropriate unit consists
of all production and maintenance employees. However, they
disagree as to the unit placement of three employees.
Earl Collett: The Union contends that Collett should be ex-
cluded as a supervisor, while the Employer wouldinclude him.
The record shows that he spends approximately 90 percent of
his time performing manual labor, and the other 10 percent
directing the Employer's 9 other employees. Such direction is
merely routine and does not involve the exercise of independent
judgement. One or the other of the two partners who constitute
the Employer is almost always present attheplant and actively
supervises the operation of the employees involved herein.
Collett has no authority to hire, discharge, promote, or trans-
fer employees, nor authority effectively to recommend such
action. We find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act and shall include him in the unit.
Frank Pignanelli: The Union would exclude Pignanelli on the
ground that his interests are allied with management, while
the Employer would include him. The parties stipulated that
"Frank Pignanelli is a nephew of Mr. Pierone, partner of the
Alloy Manufacturing Company, and that in all other respects he
2 Grinnell Brothers, 88 NLRB 397. See Section 102.52 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
9Grinnell Brothers. ibid.
ALLOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1203
is a regularly hourly paid employee of said Company, as a
sheet metal specialist." As there is no evidence that he enjoys
a special status because of his relationship, which allies his
interests with those of management , we will include him in the
unit.4
Claude Austin: The Union would exclude Austin as a guard
within the meaning of the Act, while the Employer would include
him. The record shows that Austin is employed full time as a
maintenance and parts man. When he is the last to leave he
locks up the plant. His house is adjacent to the plant and when
he is at home he keeps an eye on it. This is voluntary on his
part and he receives no compensation for this. On several
occasions he has notified the police when he saw prowlers near
the plant. We find that Austin is nota guard within the meaning
of the Act and shall include him in the unit.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plant at R.F.D. No. 1, Spokane, Washington,
including Earl Collett, Frank Pignanelli, and Claude Austin,
but excluding office clerical and professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Union contends that Donald Newton and Lloyd Evans
have been only temporarily laid off and, hence, should be per-
mitted to vote in the election directed herein. The Employer
asserts that they have been permanently laid off.
Newton and Evans were laid off onAugust27, 1953, the same
day that the Union requested recognition from the Employer as
bargaining representative. The Union filed unfair labor practice
charges against the Employer on September 14, asserting that
the two employees had been discharged for their union activi-
ties. The charges were withdrawn after the Union and Employer
concluded a settlement agreement on October 22, 1953,' which
provided that Newton and Evans were not discharged but
merely laid off and would be recalled to work before any new
employees in their work classifications were hired. This is
the basis for the Union' s assertion that they have been only
temporarily laid off.
The Employer contends that the nature of its business is
changing from the use primarily of aluminum to the increased
use of steel. As the use of steel requires welding ability and
neither Newton nor Evans is qualified to weld, the Employer
asserts that this "makes it less likely that either Newton or
Evans will be rehired."
The Employer 's business has a slack period commencing in
the fall and lasting until spring. As the Employer' s business
4International Metal Products Company , 107 NLRB 65.
5 For the same reason indicated in the case of Pignanelli, we find that the fact that Austin
is the father - in-law of one of the Employer ' s partners is not sufficient basis for excluding
him from the unit.
S On the same day, the parties signed the consent- selection agreement.
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activity will increase shortly after the date of this Decision and
as the Employer has agreed to reemploy Newton and Evans
before it hires any new employees intheir work classifications,
and is still using employees in such classifications , we find
that they have a reasonable expectation of reemployment in
the near future and that they are therefore eligible to vote in
the election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY and LOCAL NO.
317, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3606. February 19,
1954
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 Robert G. May-
berry, 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 the case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to supplant Division 998 as bargain-
ing representative for a unit composed of three groups of
employees of the Employer: Plant maintenance men; janitors,
watchmen, elevator operators, and matrons; and the non-
clerical employees in the central stores division. Division 998
agrees with the Petitioner that its present bargaining unit is
appropriate. Local 2 seeks to add the storekeepers, stock
disbursers and receivers, and appliance deliverymen of the
'Division 998, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees of America, AFL, referred to herein as Division 998, intervened on the basis
of its contract interest. Local 2, United Association of Office, Sales and Technical Employees,
referred to herein as Local 2, was permitted to intervene on thb basis of an interest showing
over the objections of the Petitioner and Division 998. The authorization cards on which Local
2 relies were obtained between the date of the first hearing in this matter and the date of the
continued hearing. Since they were acquired before the close of the hearing, we affirm the
hearing officer's ruling permitting Local 2 to intervene. Virginia- Carolina Chemical Corpora-
tion, 101 NLRB 1336.
107 NLRB No. 262.