Borg-Warner Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1715 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

INGERSOLL-HUMPHRYES DIVISION 1715
Accordingly, we find that all truckdrivers and their regularly as-
signed helpers at the Employer's 10 plants in the Miami, Florida, area,
excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
Ingersoll-Humphryes Division , Borg-Warner Corporation and
International Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. 8 RC-f818. May 2,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Edward A. Grupp, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 a unit of production and maintenance employees
in the Employer's vitreous china sanitary ware division in Mansfield,
Ohio. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their contract
is a bar to the petition.
Following certification of the Intervenor in November 1954,2 the
Employer's predecessor, The Humphryes Manufacturing Company,
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Intervenor
on March 21,1955, which covered the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the predecessor company's enamelled cast iron division.
This agreement was to run until September 21, 1956, and be automati-
cally renewable for yearly periods thereafter unless notice was given
' International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 719, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Intervenor, intervened on the basis of its contract with the Employer
covering, inter alios, the employees involved herein.
2 Case No. 8-RC-2344 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders).
117 NLRB No. 226.
1716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
60 days prior to the termination date of a desire to modify the agree-
ment. Such notice was given by the Intervenor on July 20, 1956.
Pursuant thereto, the parties negotiated a new agreement which was
executed on August 18,1956, to run for a 5-year term. This agreement
covered the production and maintenance employees of the predecessor
company's enamelled cast iron division, and also of its vitreous china
sanitary ware division sought here which had been established about a
year prior thereto. On August 21, 1956, the Employer purchased and
took over the operations of the predecessor company. On September 6,
1956, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a supplement to the
August 18 agreement, by which the Employer was substituted for the
predecessor company with respect to that agreement. The petition was
filed herein on September 14,1956, with no prior claim for recognition
having been made by the Petitioner on the Employer prior thereto.
The Petitioner contends that the August 18 contract is no bar because
the petition was filed prior to the expiration date of the original con-
tract, urging in effect that the August 18 contract was a premature
extension of the original contract. As the August 18 contract and the
September 6 supplement were executed during the Mill B period of
the original contract, and before the filing of a petition or claim for
recognition by the Petitioner, it is well established that such a contract
and supplement do not constitute a premature extension of the original
contract, and do constitute a bar, even though the petition was filed
prior to the expiration date of the original contract.'
The Petitioner also contends that the contract covering both divi-
sions of the Employer is no bar on the ground, in substance, that the
contract covers an inappropriate unit,4 because the vitreous china sani-
tary ware division is a new and separate operation which can only con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit. As the contract covers all produc-
tion and maintenance employees of the Employer, and such a unit is
presumptively appropriate,5 we find no merit in this contention.
Finally, the Petitioner contends that the contract is no bar because
there were only 45 employees in the vitreous china division at the time
the contract was executed, and that division has since expanded to 74
employees. As the appropriate unit consists of both divisions, and that
unit has only increased from 445 to 474 employees since the execution
of the contract, with no plans for any further expansion, the contract
was not executed in a truly expanding unit but one which was subject
to only a slight increase. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Peti-
tioner's expanding unit contention.
3 The Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91; Northwestern Publishing Company (WDAN),
71 NLRB 167. See also Intcrnateonal Paper Company, 80 NLRB 751, where the Board
held that a contract will operate as a bar where, as here, a successor company expressly
assumes a contract originally executed by a predecessor company.
See Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 76 NLRB 136.
See Beaumont Forging Company, 110 NLRB 2200.
NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 1717
In view of the foregoing, we find that the August 18, 1956, contract,
and its September 6, 1956, supplement, between the Employer and the
Intervenor, bar a present determination of representatives. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Northrop Aircraft, Inc. and International Union , United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Northrop Aircraft, Inc. and National Union , United Welders of
America, Independent , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-4555 and
21-RC-4580. May 22,1957
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Karl W. Filter, 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
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged at its plant in Anaheim, California,
in the design, manufacture, and sale of guided missiles, aircraft and
parts, range finders, precision fire control, and ground support equip-
ment. The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-4580, herein called Welders,
seeks to represent a unit of the Employer's welders in this plant. The
Employer takes no position as to the appropriateness of a separate unit
of welders.' There is no history of bargaining at this plant.
'The Petitioner in Case No 21-RC-4555, herein called UAW, originally sought to
represent a plantwide unit of the Employer's production and maintenance employees.
After the hearing, the UAW filed a telegraphic request for permission to withdraw its
petition The Employer has no objection to the withdrawal provided it is granted with
prejudice to the filing of a new petition within 6 months The Welders also has no
objection to the withdrawal In these circumstances, we shall grant the UAW's request
to withdraw its petition in Case No 21-RC-4555 with prejudice.
117 NLRB No. 222.