Carter Carburetor Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 253 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CARTER CARBURETOR CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 9 and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL,
PETITIONERS
Case Nos. 14-RC-13 and 14-RC-5.-Decided November 10, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, hearing on these consolidated
cases was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
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. (a) No question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer in case No. 14-RC-13
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act for the following reasons :
The Employer and International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Implement Workers of America, Local No. 819 (CIO),
herein called the Intervenor, contend that a contract executed be-
tween them on October 2, 1947, is a bar to the petition of the Inter-
national Association of Machinists, hereinafter called the IAM. The
IAM asserts that the contract is not a bar because the delay in the sign-
ing of its petition was attributable to "extenuating circumstances."
*Houston, Reynolds, and Gray.
80 N. L. it. B., No. 49.
253
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 19, 1947, the TAM informed the Employer that it
represented a majority of its toolroom and experimental toolroom
employees, and requested a meeting for the purpose of negotiating a
collective bargaining agreement. On September 24, 1947, the Em-
ployer advised the IAM that inasmuch as the Board had previously
designated the Intervenor as the bargaining representative of the
employees the IAM claimed to represent, it could not negotiate with the
IAM until it was determined to be the bargaining representative of
the employees concerned.
On October 1, 1947, about 11 a. m., an IAM representative, Warren
C. Riley, brought authorization cards and the necessary information
for the filing of the petition to the Board office. He was given a receipt,
dated October 1, 1947, for the cards, with the docket number assigned
to the case, but was told by the Board agent in charge that the office was
too busy at the moment to write up the petition immediately, and was
requested to come back later in the day to sign the petition. That after-
noon Riley became ill and had to go home about 3: 30 p. m. The next
morning, Riley still being unable to do so, an assistant business repre-
sentative of the IAM signed the petition. The Employer and the
Intervenor had already executed a new contract that same morning.
Under all the circumstances, the Board does not regard the delay
in the filing of the petition to be caused by such "extenuating circum-
stances" as to relax the rule enunciated in the General X-Ray case.'
We find that the petition was barred by the newly executed contract.
We shall, therefore, dismiss the IAM petition.
(b) A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer in Case No. 14-RC-5 within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The IBEW contends that all electricians, electrician assistants,
and electrician letdmen at the Employer's St. Louis plants, excluding
supervisors, constitutes a separate appropriate unit for bargaining
'Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N. L R . B. 997 ; Matter of Missis-
sippi Lime Company of Missouri , 71 N. L. R. B. 472.
2 We find no merit in the contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor that a contract
executed by them on October 2, 1947, is a bar to this proceeding because International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called the IBEW, and the American
Federation of Labor, were not in compliance on the date the contract was executed. Our
records show that the IBEW was in fact in compliance before the contract was executed.
Matter of Northern Virginia Broadcasters , Radio Station WARL, 75 N. L. R. B . 11. In-
asmuch as the petition herein was filed prior to the execution of the October 2, 1947,
contract , the contract cannot constitute a bar to a current determination of representa-
tives. Matter of Crowley's Milk Company, Inc, 79 N. L. R. B., No. 602 . For the reasons
stated in our Supplemental Decision in Matter of Advance Pattern Company, 80 N. L. R. B.
29, we find no merit in the further contention of the Employer that the IBEW petition
was fatally defective in that it did not specifically allege that the Employer refused to
recognize the IBEW as bargaining representative of the Employer 's employees. The
record shows that a demand for, and a refusal of, recognition had in fact occurred prior
to the hearing in this case.
CARTER CARBURETOR CORPORATION 255
purposes. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the pro-
posed craft unit is not appropriate (1) because of the integration of
the work of all employees in the plants, and (2) because of a long bar-
gaining history of the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees on a plant-wide basis.3
At its St. Louis plants, the Employer employs 10 journeymen elec-
tricians, 5 assistant electricians, and 4 electrician leadmen. These
employees are engaged in electrical repair and maintenance through-
out the plant. They are assigned to construction work and to trouble
shooting assignments. They do not do production work, but may
make minor mechanical repairs. Electricians furnish their own
tools and receive a higher rate of pay than do production workers.
Although prior to the filing of the petition by the IBEW, electricians
were under separate supervision, at the time of the hearing they
were under the same immediate supervision as other maintenance
workers. There is no interchange of work between electricians and
other maintenance employees.'
We have frequently found appropriate units of construction and
maintenance electricians, despite a long history of plant-wide bar-
gaining, where the electricians are highly skilled craftsmen and
have duties similar to those of the electricians herein involved .5 In-
asmuch as it appears that the electrical employees sought by the
IBEW are an identifiable, skilled, and homogeneous group of craft em-
ployees, they may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so
desire. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this
time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as ex-
pressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 6
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
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this,
The Employer and the Intervenor have bargained for this inclusive unit since 1943.
The record does not support the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that
there is substantial interchange and intermingling of work between the electricians and
other maintenance workers
' Matter of Lockheed Aircra f t Corporation, 77 N. L R B. 507; Matter of Hughes Tool
Company, 77 N. L R. B. 1193 ; Matter of Waldorf Paper Products Company, 76 N. L.
R B 127
$ Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
appio%al thereof by, the Re g ional Director, have its name removed from the ballot
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case was heard and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended,
among the employees described in paragraph 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll 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
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,
by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, or by
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Implement
Workers of America, Local 819 (CIO), or by neither.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en-
tire record in these proceedings, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of
representatives of employees of Carter Carburetor Corporation, St.
Louis, Missouri, filed in Case No. 14-RC-13 by International Associ-
ation of Machinists, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.