Frances H. Lessett and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

FRANCES H LEGGETT AND COMPANY 217
process, the truckdrivers-shipping clerks convey the orders to
the foundry where a scale is available for weighing the shipment.
The shipment is checked by the drivers and then is transported
by truck to a railroad depot . An assistant receiving clerk, who
assists the receiving clerk, a conceded supervisor , works in
the supply room and records the receipt of all materials which
come into the plant.
In view of the units found appropriate above, the shipping
department employees are the only production employees who
remain unrepresented , other than the foundry employees whom
we traditionally find to constitute a separate appropriate unit.
Accordingly, we find that the employees herein sought are in
the nature of a residual unit , and that as such , they may be
afforded an opportunity to select separate representation,
particularly in the absence of any bargaining history on a
broader basis.
The unit placement of the plant clerks in the shipping depart-
ment is in dispute . The Petitioner contends that these em-
ployees should be excluded from the unit because their interests
are not allied with those of the shipping and receiving em-
ployees. The Employer contends otherwise . The two plant
clerks work in the shipping department . One clerk maintains
records of shipments which leave the plant and is supervised
exclusively by the shipping department foreman . The other
clerk keeps records of production and, while he is located in
the shipping department , he is supervised by both the shipping
department foreman and the production foreman. As the
interests and duties of these employees appear to be allied
with those of the shipping and receiving employees , we shall
include them in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that all shipping and receiving em-
ployees and supply room employees, including packers , testers,
checkers , inspectors , truckdrivers - shipping clerks, and plant
clerks , excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
FRANCES H. LEGGETT AND COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL
UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner and LOCAL 676, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL
and LOCAL 56, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND
BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL. Case
No. 4-RC-1974. July 20, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed , a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing
106 NLRB No 37.
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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-member panel [Members
Houston , Styles , and Peterson].
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 named below claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. For more than 10 years, the Employer has recognized
Local 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (hereinafter
called Teamsters) as the representative of its truckdrivers,
helpers, shippers, and receivers, and has recognized Meat
Cutters as the representative of its other regular and seasonal
production and maintenance employees. After the expiration of
its contracts with these unions on April 15, 1953, the Employer
on April 22 executed with each union an agreement extending
until April 15, 1955, all the terms of such prior contracts, and
providing further as follows:
(1) That all parties shall confer "as soon as possible . . . on
the matter of wages, workweek hours, and all other economic
benefits."
(2) That if no agreement is reached, the contracting union
may strike or submit all disputed items to arbitration.
(3) That any changes in terms resulting from negotiations or
arbitration shall be retroactive to April 15, 1953.
The Intervenors and the Employer contend that the foregoing
contracts of April 22 bar the petition, which was filed on April
27, after the execution of such contracts. The Petitioner con-
tends that such-contracts are nobarbecause they are of indefi-
nite duration. However, contrary to the situation in the cases
cited by the Petitioner, the April 22 contracts extend the
provisions of the old contracts for a definite period. The fact
that such provisions are subject to modification during that
period does not prevent the contracts from operating as a bar.
The Board has held that the parties to a contract may at any
time during its term renegotiate or modify any of its provisions
(except the terminal date) without opening up the contract to an
otherwise untimely petition.2 Clearly, merely providing for
'The hearing officer referred to the Board the motion of the Intervenors to dismiss the
petition on the following grounds:
(1) The petition is barred by current contracts between the Employer and each of the two
Intervenors.
(2) The original petition, which sought a plantwide unit, was improperly amended at the
hearing so as to seek two separate units of the Employer's employees, conforming to the
two existing contract units.
Although the amendment of the petition in the manner indicated did not invalidate the
petition, we find, for the reasons indicated in the text, below, that the current contracts
are a bar, and we shall accordingly grant the motion to dismiss the petition.
2 Western Electric Company, incorporated. 94 NLRB 54.
C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. 219
such modification, as in the instant case, does not warrant a
different result.3
We find, therefore, that no question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act, and we will dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3See Appleton Electric Company, 105 NLRB 666.
C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. and DISTRICT NO. 9, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A.F.L., 'Petitioner
C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 149 A.F.L.,' Peti-
tioner . Cases Nos. 14-RC-2202, 14-RC-2203, and 14-RC-
2213. July 20, 1953
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly -filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Walter A. Werner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.3
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases
to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged incommerce withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to representcer-
tain 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. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of iron oxide pigments. The bargaining history of its East
St. Louis, Illinois, plant, which is alone involved in this
proceeding, dates back to 1936, when the Employer entered
into a collective-bargaining agreement covering all its hourly
paid production and maintenance employees. In 1948 Interna-
'Herein referred to as the I.A.M.
2 Herein referred to as the Operating Engineers.
3The Employer and Intervenor moved at the hearing that the petitions in all three cases
be dismissed. The motions were referred to the Board. For reasons stated below, in the
text, the motions are granted only with respect to Case No. 14-RC-2202.
4Local No. 21, International Chemical Workers Union, A.F.L., intervened in the instant
cases on the basis of a current contract.
106 NLRB No. 35.