Glass Arts, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 1423 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

GLASS ARTS, INC. 1423
prerequisite to a schism finding. Accordingly, as the existing con-
tract, which will not expire until October 18, 1960, is otherwise a bar,
we shall dismiss the petition without prejudice to a timely refiling.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER JFNKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Glass Arts, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-flC-673. October 28, 1959
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 Claude B. Calkin,
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor
organization. As the record establishes that the Petitioner exists for
the purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and
conditions of employment, we find that it is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
The Employer contends that, if the Petitioner is a labor oragniza-
tion, its District 36-G, with which the local which will represent the
Employer's employees will assertedly be affiliated, is also a labor or-
ganization; and that as District 36--G concededly has not complied
with the filing requirements of the Act, the petition must be dismissed.
District 36-G is one of the 38 geographical districts provided for by
Petitioner's constitution; it is not chartered, as are the locals; the
i The Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the staff repre-
sentative who signed it was not an officer of Petitioner, is denied . Neither the Act
nor the Board 's Rules and Regulations require that the person filing a petition be an
officer of the petitioning union. See Eastman Kodak Company, 115 NLRB 591, footnote 1.
a We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the hearing officer erred in refus-
ing to permit it to litigate questions concerning the adequacy of the compliance by the
Petitioner and certain of its locals with Section , 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. This is
an administrative matter not cognizable in the present proceeding ; moreover, the com-
pliance status of the locals is, for the reasons set forth herein , immaterial to this proceed-
ing, and we are administratively satisfied that at all times material to this proceeding,
the Petitioner was in compliance . See Desaulniers and Company, 115 NLRB 1025; and
Standard Cigar Company , 117 NLRB 852.
124 NLRB No. 192.
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
district director performs his duties only as a member of the executive
board of the International Union (article IV, sections 19-26) ; and no
independent function is accorded to the district or its director by the
constitution, the representation of union members being entrusted ex-
clusively to the International Union and the locals (article XVII, sec-
tions 1 and 2). In Ekco Products Conspany (Sta-Brite Division),
117 NLRB 137, at 141, 177-179, a case involving the same Petitioner,
the Board found, upon substantially the same facts as adduced in the
instant proceeding, that a district of the Petitioner was not a labor
organization. Under all the circumstances, we find that District 36-G
is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and that the
question of its compliance is, therefore, immaterial to the present
proceeding.
At the hearing, Petitioner stated that in the event it won the election
at the Employer's plant, it would establish a new local to represent
these employees, rather than designate one of the existing locals.
Under these circumstances, we find that the compliance status of these
existing locals is not material to the present proceeding.3 Further-
more, as the Board has consistently held,4 compliance by a petitioning
international union is sufficient for the purposes of directing an elec-
tion, and that questions as to the compliance status of the local which
will represent the employees, where that local will not be estabished
until after the election will be material only as the time of certifica-
tion. The Board has held that if, in such situations, the petitioning
international union should win the election, it would not be certified
if, in fact, a local had then been established, unless such local was also
in compliance.' However, as the Board recently noted, in Whaley
Coal Company, 124 NLRB 1113, Section 9(f), (g), and (h) has
been repealed, and no machinery now exists by which any newly
established local could achieve compliance. In these circumstances
we shall, for the reasons set forth in the Whaley case, certify the Peti-
tioner, should it win the election, without regard to the compliance
status of any local which may hereafter be established.
In view of the foregoing, the Employer's motion to dismiss the peti-
tion, on grounds pertaining to compliance, is denied.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of production and main-
tenance employees, including warehouse employees, truckdrivers, and
glasscutters at the Employer's four plants located in the Dade County.
area of Florida. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition, con-
3 Cf. Standard Cigar Company, supra.
2 E.g., Ozark Manufacturing and Supply Company, 108 NLRB 1476.
5 Trade Winds Company, Inc., 115 NLRB 860, footnote 1.
GLASS ARTS, INC. 1425
tending that only single plant units are appropriate. The Employer
would exclude the mechanics and the truckdrivers, or in the alternative,
would establish them as a separate unit, contending that these em=
ployees have interests diverse from the production and maintenance
employees. In its brief, the Employer asks for a Board determination
as to whether the glasscutters are entitled to a self-determination
election.
The. Employer, at its three plants 6 manufactures different types of
glass windows, and table tops. The plants are located from. 3 to 10
miles apart, and the 3 immediate supervisors of each are directly
responsible to the Employer's manager. The record shows that-the
three plants employ respectively, 25, 19, and 5 employees. There are
seven glasscutters at one plant and two at another, and the, three
mechanics are all at one plant. All three plants have machine men,
lift operators, pull-motor operators and boxers. There are two truck-
drivers at one plant, and one at another, who make deliveries between
plants and also to customers within the Dade County area. The Em,
ployer has on its payroll some long distance drivers, hired from an-
other company, who deliver to customers between Florida and New
York. Although there is no-interchange of employees or machinery,
and each plant turns. out its own finished products, the glass cleaning
and mechanical services for all three plants are done at one plant.
Further, all orders are phoned into one plant, and all deliveries are
made therefrom. The payrolls are made up in the main office, and all
the employees have similar working conditions and share in the same
fringe benefits.. ' There is no prior bargaining history.
Under these. circumstances, particularly the fact that the multiplant
unit is companywide in scope, that there is some interdependency of
functions and common overall supervision, and the fact that no.labor
organization seeks to represent these employees separately, we find, in
accord with established Board policy, that the multiplant unit is ap.
propriate,1 and the Employer's motion to dismiss is denied.
. As no labor organization is seeking to represent them separately,
we shall, in accord with established Board policy, include in the unit,
the glass cutters, the mechanics, and the interplant truckdrivers.8
The parties,stipulated that the three superintendents of each plant
and one assistant superintendent should be excluded from the unit.
The Petitioner would include, and the Employer would exclude, a^
supervisors, Krigline, the supervisor of mechanics at Uleta; Carte-
G The fourth plant, at East 30th St., also requested in the petition, has been s)'
down, and the only remaining employees are a 'moving crew. As there is no reasona
expectancy of their continued-employment, we shall exclude the moving crew from
unit. See Central Mutual Telephone Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1663, 1667.
' See Arrow Gas Corporation, 124 NLRB No. 161 ; McAllister's Dairy Farms; Inc., 118
NLRB 1117. '
s See'McAllister's Dairy Farin.s, Inc., in footnote 7, supra. '
525543-60-vol. 124-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the machine supervisor at Uleta; and Cowert and Earkett, the day and
night machine supervisors, respectively, at Hialeah. The record es-
tablishes that these four individuals responsibly direct employees, and
it is undisputed that they can effectively recommend discharge. As
these individuals possess the statutory indicia of supervisory author-
ity, we find that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act,
and, accordingly, exclude them from the unit.
Accordingly, 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, including truckdrivers, warehousemen, me-
chanics, and glasscutters, employed at the Employer's Hialeah, Ojus,
and Uleta, Florida, plants, excluding office clerical employees, guards,
the three superintendents of the plants, the assistant superintendent
at Uleta, the supervisor of mechanics at Uleta; the day and night
machine supervisors at Hialeah and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Granite Hosiery Mills Inc. and Bobby Ray Kirkman . Case No.
11-CA-14-31. October 30, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 19, 1959, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices as
alleged and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the General Counsel made a motion to amend the complaint
and filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief. The Respondent filed amotion opposing the amendment of the
complaint.
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, the motion to amend and
opposition thereto, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
1 In the light of our disposition of the complaint herein, we find it unnecessary to pass
on the admissibility of the affidavit of Sam Ashburn. Accordingly , we do not adopt the
Trial Examiner's discussion or ruling on this point.
124 NLRB No.195.