Circle F. Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 702 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In.the Matter of CIRCLE F. MFG. Co., EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER and
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF OPERATIVE POTTERS, LOCAL No. 187,
A. F. L. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL No. B-1273, A. F. L., UNIONS
Case .1%o. 4-RV-3.Decided September 15,19418
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing was held in this case at Trenton,
New Jersey, on December 11, 1947, before John H. Garver, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Circle F. Mfg. Co., a New Jersey corporation having its principal
place of business in Trenton, New Jersey, is engaged in the manu-
facture of electrical devices. Annually it purchases raw materials
valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 90 percent is received
from points outside the State of New Jersey. Annually it manu-
factures finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which
more than 90 percent is sold and shipped from Trenton to points outside
the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
National Brotherhood of Operative Potters, Local No. 187, herein
called the Potters, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
79 N L. R. B, No. 92.
702
CIRCLE F. MFG. CO. 703
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. B-1273,
herein called the I. B. E. W., is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Potters has represented the production employees in the Em-
ployer's porcelain division since 1941. The last collective bargaining
contract covering these employees, executed on February 25, 1947, by
its terms was to continue in effect until December 27, 1947, and from
year to year thereafter, unless either party gave notice of termination
at least 30' days before December 27, 1947, or any anniversary of that
date.
On September 18, 1947, the I. B. E. W. claimed recognition as bar-
gaining agent for this same group of employees. On October 27, the
Employer gave notice of termination of, its contract with the Potters,-
and, on the same day, filed the petition Herein.
The Potters contends that the 1947 contract is a bar to this proceed-
ing. This contention is without merit, because the contract was termi-
nated in accordance with its terms before the petition was filed.
We 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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that all
production employees in the Employer's porcelain division, excluding
toolroom employees,' office and clerical employees, non-production
salaried employees, watchmen, maintenance men, foremen, assistant
foremen, and all other 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.2
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Potters requests that the I. B. E. W. be denied a place on the
ballot in the election hereinafter directed because, at the hearing, the
I. B. E. W. did not prove a showing of interest among the employees
involved. As we have recently held that labor organizations named
I Toolroom employees are included in a separate unit represented by the International
Association of Machinists.
2 This is the unit covered by the 1947 agreement between the Potters and the Employer.
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in employer petitions need not make a showing of interest in order to
appear on the ballot, the Potters' request is denied.
We shall not place the name of the Potters on the ballot because,
although at the time of the hearing it was in compliance with the
requirements of Section 9 (f) and (h) of the amended Act, it is not
now in compliance with that Section.4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Circle F. Mfg. Co., Trenton, New
Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possi-
ble, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, 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 dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the
date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are
not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. B-1273, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER GRAY took no part in the considera-
tion of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
8 Matter of 0 E Felton, d/b/a Felton Oil Company, 78 N L R B 1033 See also
National Labor Relations Board Statements of Procedure , Section 202 17
For the reasons indicated in his dissenting opinion in the Felton case, Member Murdock
-would not direct an election with the I B. E W (the only complying union) on the ballot,
as there is no showing that it actually represents any of the employees in the unit. In-
stead, he would remand the case to the Regional Director for an investigation to determine
whether or not the I iB E. W represents a substantial number of employees , a step not
previously taken because the case was processed under Section 202 17 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations , Series 5, which eliminates the requirement in employer petition cases.
However, Member Murdock considers himself bound in this case and future cases, by the
majority decision of the Board in the Felton case , and theretore concurs in this decision.
4 Matter of Rite-Form Corset Company, Inc, 75 N L. R B 174