88 N.L.R.B. 574 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

Atlas Cork Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 8, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 574 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of ATLAS CORK WORKS, INC., EMPLOYER and Louis VAL- PAIS, PETITIONER, and UNITED SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 377, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO, UNION In the Matter of ATLAS CORK WORKS, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 377, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO, UNION Cases Nos. 2-RD-84 and 2-RD-1892.-Decided February 8,1950 DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held in the above cases before Lloyd S. Greenidge, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-men ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner in Case No. 2-RD-84, an employee of the Em- ployer, asserts that United Service Employees Union, Local 377, Re- tail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, CIO, hereafter referred to as the Union, is presently recognized by the Employer but is no longer the representative of these employees, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. United Service Employees Union, Local 377, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, CIO, the Petitioner in Case No. 2-RC-1892, is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 88 NLRB No. 121. 574 ATLAS CORK WORKS, INC. 575 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.' 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: all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's cork manufacturing plant in Brooklyn, New York, excluding all guards and supervisors. 5.. The Union contends that an election should be postponed until there is a more representative number of employees working at the plant. At the time the RD petition was filed, there were approximately 20 employees within the unit. Due to economic conditions, the Em- ployer, at the time of the hearing, had reduced his working complement to 10 employees. The record shows that although the Employer is willing to rehire the employees released if and when there might be work for them, there is no indication that the Employer will have need for more than 12 employees at any time in the future. We find, therefore, that the present working complement of employees is a representative group. We also find that the employees released are not eligible to vote in the election. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 2-RD-84 herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations'Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the ' The Employer presently recognizes the Union as the sole collective bargaining repre- sentative of its employees in the appropriate unit. The Union , nevertheless, desires to receive a formal Board certification . General Box Company, 82 NLRB 678. Member Murdock dissented in the case cited, but is now bound by the majority decision therein. The Union contends that an agreement entered into on August 15, 1946, and a supple- mental agreement signed on January 10 , 1949 , constitutes a bar to the petition for decertifi- cation filed by Louis Valpais. We find no merit in this contention . The contract contains invalid closed -shop provisions and cannot serve as a bar to a present determination of representatives. Because the issues raised in Case No . 2-RD-84 will be necessarily resolved in the election directed in Case Ito. 2-RC-1892, we shall dismiss the petition in Case No . 2-RD-84. 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above,, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said- payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since .quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- :stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain- ing, by United Service Employees Union, Local 377, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, CIO.