C & D Batteries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1405 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

C & D BATTERIES, INC. 1405
Jersey 2 boats valued at $4,200 each, and delivered at its
plant a $ 7,000 boat to Isbrandtsen lines.
The Employer moved that the petition be dismissed on the
grounds that its operations are essentially local and that it would
not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over it.
Upon the foregoing facts, we find that the Employer's
operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. As
the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of vessels for
the United States Navy, its operations have a substantial
effect upon the national defense program. Accordingly, we shall
assert jurisdiction herein.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting 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. We find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at
its Greenwich, Connecticut, plant, excluding office and plant
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
I Westport Moving and Storage Company, Crate Making Division, 91 NLRB 902. Brady
Aviation Corporation, 104 NLRB 220.
in concluding that the Employer's operations have a sufficiently substantial effect upon
the national defense to warrant exercise of the Board's jurisdiction, Chairman Farmer
and Member Rodgers rely largely upon the fact that the Employer is a direct manufacturer
and supplier, for the United States Navy, of defense materiel. Cf. McArthur Jersey Farm Dairy,
107 NLRB 885.
2 The parties agree that this unit is appropriate, but differ as to the placement of Walter
Jackowski whom the Petitioner would exclude as a supervisor and the Employer would
include. The record indicates that Jackowski exercises none of the mdicia of supervisory
authority set forth in the Act. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit.
C & D BATTERIES, INC. and DISTRICT NO. 1, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,' Petitioner
and UNITED ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA AND ITS LOCAL 110.2 Case No.
4-RC-2191. February 26, 1954
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 William
'Herein called IAM.
2 Herein called UE and Local 110. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, CIO, herein called IUE, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis
of a showing of interest among the employees sought.
107 NLRB No. 261
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Naimark , 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
certain employees of the Employer.' N
3. The UE and Local 110 contend that the current contract 4
between Local 110 and the Employer is a bar to the instant
proceeding . The IAM and the IUE contend that the contract
is not a bar on the ground that Local 110 is defunct. The
Employer takes no position on this issue . 6 The pertinent
facts are as follows:
The membership of Local 110, having become dissatisfied
with the policies of the UE , set up a 5-member committee
about March 1953 to investigate the feasibility of affiliating
with another organization . After conducting the investigation, 6
the committee notified the members on October 15, 1953,
of a special meeting to be held on October 19, 1953, in order
to report their findings .? At the meeting , attended only by
members, the committee recommended that Local 110 affiliate
with the IAM. The 95 members present voted *unanimously to
disaffiliate from UE and to affiliate with IAM. Sometime later,
virtually all of the 130 members of Local 110 signed authoriza-
tion cards for the IAM.
On October 28, 1953, the committee notified the Employer
that Local 110 had seceded from the UE and requested it to
recognize the IAM as bargaining representative . The Em-
ployer declined. The next day the IAM filed the instant petition.
3 The IAM and the IUE refused to stipulate that the UE and Local 110 were labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act. The UE refused to stipulate that the former were labor
organizations As all four organizations exist for the purpose of dealing with employers
concerning rates of pay and conditions of work, we find that they are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
4 The contract was executed July 1, 1953, for a 1-year term, and covers the employees
here sought.
5 The Employer contends, however, that the contract is binding on whoever is found to be
the bargaining representative. The IAM has indicated that it is willing to assume the existing
contract. We do not find it necessary to pass upon this issue in a representation proceeding.
Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59. Chairman Farmer believes that, under the
circumstances of this case, whatever union is certified as a result of the election directed
herein should be deemed to assume the rights and obligations conferred by the existing
contract.
6 About October 9, 1953, the committee contacted a representative of the IAM and requested
information as to means of disaffiliating from the UE and affiliating with the IAM The rep-
resentative declined assistance, explaining that he could not aid them until Local 110 had
disaffiliated from the UE. About October 14, 1953, the committee contacted another rep-
resentative of the IAM This representative told them how LAM operated but also declined
to assist Local 110 in seceding from the UE.
7 The UE contends that both the method of notification as well as the holding of the special
meeting violated the constitution and bylaws of the UE and also Local 110. We find no merit
in this contention. Benjamin Air Rifle Company, 107 NLRB 104.
WESTINGHOUSE RADIO STATIONS, INC. 1407
Members of an executive committee acting on behalf of
the employees have negotiated with the Employer concerning
grievances . The Employer is holding in escrow dues deduc-
ted under the contract . The UE has appointed an administrator
to service the contract , but at the time of the hearing he had
not taken any steps to do so. It does not appear from the
record that Local 110 has any members at the Employer's
plant.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that for all practical
purposes Local 110 is defunct. Under all these circumstances
we find that the existing contract is not a bar to the petition.8
We further find that a question affecting 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 following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act : All production and maintenance employees of the
Employer , excluding salaried employees , office and clerical
employees, laboratory workers, watchmen , timekeepers, in-
spectors , laboratory workers , executives , and supervisors as
defined in the Act.9
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
813enjamin Air Rifle Company, supra; Franklin Throwing Company, 101 NLRB 153.
9 The unit conforms to the stipulation of the parties as well as the contract unit.
WESTINGHOUSE RADIO STATIONS , INC. covering RADIO
STATIONS KEX and KEX FM and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS, PORTLANDLOCAL,
AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 36 -RC-932 . February 26, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing and a reopened hearing were
held before E. G. Strumpf , hearing officer . The hearing offi-
cer's rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
On January 14, 1954 , at Washington, D. C., the Board heard
oral argument in which all parties participated.
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 representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.
107 NLRB No. 282.