California Cornice Steel and Supply Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 787 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CALIFORNIA CORNICE STEEL AND SUPPLY CORP. 787
CALIFORNIA CORNICE STEEL AND SUPPLY CORP. and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR-
CRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), Petitioner. Case Nd. 21 -RC-2930.
May 5, 1953
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 Floyd C.
Brewer, 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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
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.
3. Locals 548, 108, and 509 assert as bars certain contracts
with the Employer. The petition herein was filed January 22,
1953. Local 548's contract was executed after that date, on
February 17, 1953; hence it is clearly no bar. Local 108's
contract was automatically renewable after that date, on April
1, 1953. As this automatic renewal date has already passed,
neither the remaining nor the renewed term of this contract
can be a bar.' The automatic renewal date of Local 509's
contract will not arrive until June 1, 1953. However, the record
establishes that, regardless of what unit the contract may
'Special appearances were made by Locals No. 108 and No. 548 , Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, AFL, and Local No. 433 and Shopmen's Local No . 509, Inter-
national Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL, to register
their objection to the hearing officer 's refusal to postpone the hearing until February 26.
On February 6, 1953, their attorney , one Nissen , had informed the Regional Office of the
Board that he would not be available to participate in a hearing until March 8. Because
such a delay was of unreasonable length, the Regional Director had set the hearing for
February 19, and these AFL unions were duly notified under date of February 6. On February
16 Nissen wrote the Regional office , this time asking that the hearing be postponed from
February 19 until February 26. The Regional Director granted this request.
However, on February 17, Local 548 entered into a union-shop contract with the Employer
for a unit generally corresponding to that sought by the Petitioner herein . Thereupon, the
Regional Director rescinded the postponement ; and the hearing was held on February 19 as
originally scheduled . At the hearing the AFL unions twice again requested a postponement
to February 26, which the hearing officer denied . After the close of the hearing , the AFL
unions filed with the Board a telegram appealing from these rulings . As the hearing was
already at an end, this appeal amounted to a motion to reopen the record and hold a supple-
mental hearing . We hereby deny this motion . We do not believe that the hearing officer's
refusal of a postponement was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case.
The AFL unions knew as early as February 7 that a hearing was to be held on a day when
Nissen would be unavailable, and they had ample opportunity to secure other counsel. Their
failure to make such arrangements cannot be attributed to the Regional Director 's action on
February 17 or 18 in first granting and then rescinding a postponement of the hearing.
=Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 94 NLRB 197.
104 NLRB No. 86.
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
purport to cover, Local 509 has never in fact represented any
of the employees now sought by the Petitioner. Accordingly, its
contract cannot be a bar.' We therefore 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 Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production
workers in the Employer's "manufacturing division," which
is devoted to the production of aircraft parts and assemblies.
It would include the plant clericals whose work pertains
exclusively to that division. To these it would add all the
Employer's maintenance employees although they service the
entire plant, not just the "manufacturing division." It states
that it seeks a residual unit comprising all the otherwise
unrepresented production and maintenance employees. The
Employer and the AFL unions contend that such a unit is
inappropriate.
The Employer's plant is located in Los Angeles, California.
In addition to the aircraft work mentioned above, it prefabri-
cates steel service-station and mill buildings. This prefabri-
cation work is done in its "fabricating division," which directly
adjoins its "manufacturing division." The production workers
in this "fabricating division" have for some time been
represented by AFL unions: All sheet metal workers by Local
108 and all ironworkers by Local 509. The Employer is also
engaged in erecting buildings on the premises of its customers.
The employees performing this work are also represented by
AFL unions: The sheet metal workers by Local 108 and the
ironworkers by Local 433. The Employer's truckdrivers, their
helpers, and the warehousemen who load and unload trucks
have for some time been covered by an oral contract with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL. None of the plant
clerical, maintenance, or manufacturing division employees
had been represented by any union until the execution of the
February 17, 1953, contract with Local 548, after the petition
was filed.
What the Petitioner appears to be seeking is a unit of all
production and maintenance employees not otherwise repre-
sented. Such a unit is appropriate because of its residual
nature, quite apart from its possible appropriateness on other
grounds.' Moreover, it is substantially the same as the unit
covered by the February 17, 1953, contract between the
Employer and Local 548. However, the Petitioner apparently
would omit a few unrepresented production and maintenance
employees who properly belong in such a residual unit, namely
those plant clericals whose work pertains in whole or in part
to the "fabricating division." We will add these to the unit.
9 Sucesores De Abarca, Inc., 101 NLRB 523.
4Marion Manufacturing Co., 101 NLRB 256; Central Mercedita, Inc., 100 NLRB 1168;
Houston Lighting & Power Co., 100 NLRB 76; Jacobs Manufacturing Co., 99 NLRB 482.
KNOX CORPORATION 789
Accordingly we find that the following employees constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production employees in the manufacturing division, and
all maintenance and plant clerical employees, at the Employer's
Los Angeles, California, plant, including employees whomanu-
facture magnesium beams for aircraft, shipping and receiving
clerks at all three warehouses, storeroom clerks in both
storerooms, and material control employees,5 but excluding
outside employees, employees in the fabricating division,
truckdrivers and helpers, warehousemen who load and unload
trucks, office clerical employees,6 professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Interstate Machinery Co., 66 NLRB 1336; Heintz Manufacturing Co., 100 NLRB 1521.
6As the Petitioner does not regard as plant clericals the employees serving as stenog-
raphers to foremen and Government inspectors, and as no other position is taken with
respect to these employees by the Employer or the AFL unions,, we exclude them as office
clerical employees.
KNOX CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2165. May
5, 1953
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 Frank E.
Hamilton, Jr., 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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles ].
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.'
1 The Employer 's contention that the Petitioner is not a labor organization has no merit.
The record shows that the Petitioner has officers and a constitution and is organized for
purposes of collective bargaining with employers concerning the wages, hours, and working
conditions of employees. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 96 NLRB 1052.
104 NLRB No. 96.
283230 0 - 54 - 51