Button Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 3, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 967 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BUTTON CORPORATION OF AMERICA, EMPLOYER AND
PETITIONER and UNITED ELECTRICAL & SPECIALTY WORKERS, LOCAL
No. 305, AFFILIATED WITH PLAYTHINGS, NOVELTY AND JEWELRY
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCI-
ATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 47, UNIONS
Case No. 2-RM-122.Decided May 3, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing vas held before Jack Davis, hearing ofliceia.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
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 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 Employer filed the instant amended petition on January 3, 1950.
At the hearing on this petition, the Employer indicated that for several
years it had been faced with conflicting claims from the International
Association of Machinists, herein called the IAM, and the United
Electrical & Specialty Workers, CIO, herein called the CIO, with
respect to seven maintenance employees whom the Employer classified
as "general utility" employees.'
'Philip Sohn, Louis Heberg, Emil Trachin, Joseph Doran, Joseph Tabiano, Robert
Maxwell , and Frank Corbo.
89 NLRB No. 125.
967
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Prior to the hearing, and at the time the Employer filed its petition,
the IAM, which represented the Employer's machinists, machinists'
helpers, and mechanical maintenance employees, claimed that the em-
ployees named in the Employer's petition were mechanical mainte-
nance men and belonged in the unit of employees for which the IAM
had a contract.
The CIO, on the other hand, the representative of the Employer's
production and nonmechanical maintenance employees, contended
that the subject employees were nonmechanical maintenance employees
and should be included in the unit covered by its contract. Unable to
resolve these conflicting claims, the Employer has refused to recognize
either union as the representative of these employees, and has filed this
petition to determine their unit placement. The day before the hear-
ing, the IAM sent a telegram to the Board stating that it no longer had
any interest in the case and it did not appear at the hearing.2 The
Employer refused, nevertheless, to withdraw the petition.
The seven employees involved in this proceeding perform principally
nonmechanical, maintenance work throughout the plant, including
electrical maintenance, carpentry work, painting, plumbing, and gen-
eral maintenance work. The record discloses that the CIO has been
certified as the representative of the Employer's nonmechanical main-
tenance employees, among others, and is currently recognized by the
Employer as the representative of such employees.3 We find, there-
fore, that no question concerning representation now exists with re-
spect to the employees in question.4 We shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition.
ORDER.
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 The Employer's last contract with the IAM expired on June 1, 1949. On that date
the Employer closed its machine shop, and laid off all the machinists except the foreman
and Emil Trachin . Since June 1, 1949, the Employer has not hired any new machinists,
and Emil Trachin , the machinist who was not laid off, is now engaged primarily in electri-
cal maintenance work.
$ In Case No. 2--RC-220, after a consent election, the CIO' was designated on April 14,
1948, as the bargaining representative in the following unit : "All production workers and
nonmechanical maintenance men, excluding clerical and office employees , machinists,
machinists ' helpers . and mechanical maintenance men, guards , watchmen, professional
employees and supervisors."
In the Employer' s current contract with the CIO, the unit is described as follows : All.
production and maintenance employees , machinists and machinists ' helpers, excluding
clerical and office employees , guards, professional employees , and supervisors. The Em
-ployer and the CIO agreed, however, that this unit was not to be construedas including
the seven "general utility" employees involved in this case,
' We construe the Employer's position in this case as, in effect , a request for a Board
determination as to whether the "general utility" employees belong in one of the categories
included in the existing contract and certification, and as withholding recoenition of the
CIO as the representative of the general utility employees only if the Board should
determine that they do not belong in such a category.