Hardboard Fabricators Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 823 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

, HARDBOARD FABRICATORS CORP. ' 823 ,
of votes cast that counts . Why if only a dozen people went over, do you
realize that 7 votes would decide this election for over 500 people.
8. I asked what happened after the polls closed at 6:00 P. M.
No one can vote after that hour.
Then the count of the votes begin . The Government man opens the box or
bag. He dumps the ballots out on the table and flattens them out face down.
The Government man starts counting the ballots and the watchers tallies them.
9. Now we take all the No's and the Yes's and then the count is in ! And the results
are announced right then and there.
10. So there is the way it works. Thanks , folks , for coming.
Hardboard Fabricators Corp . and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-8561. March 27,1957
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 Nathan Cohen, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor,' Local 821, United Brother-
hood, of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition
contending that their current contract is a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioner urged that the contract is not a bar and furthermore
that the Intervenor is defunct in regard to the representation of
employees herein involved.
On August 15, 1952, the Intervenor and the Employer' s predecessor
executed a contract for 1 year to be continued from year to year unless
either party gave written notice 60 days prior to termination of its
desire to modify or terminate. No such notice was given in June 1953.
On January 15, 1954, the present owners took over the physical assets
and the employees of the Company. Shortly thereafter, the repre-
sentative of the Intervenor met with the Employer. In the course of
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Petitioner 's motion to revoke the inter-
vention on the ground that the Intervenor failed to show any present interest in the
employees . The motion is hereby denied. It is well established in Board policy that an
intervenor has a colorable claim to representation sufficient for purposes of intervention
where it has had contractual relations with and is currently recognized by the employer.
Holland Furnace Company, 95 NLRB 1339, 1340
117 NLRB No. 125.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these meetings, the Employer informed the Intervenor that because of
bad business conditions and sharp reduction in operations, the
Employer could not enforce the 1952 contract of its predecessor. The
Employer further stated that any insistence upon the collection of
dues and assessments from employees would result in forcing the
Employer to shut down the plant. The Employer and the Intervenor
then reached an oral understanding whereby the 1952 contract would
remain in effect until such time as the Employer would be in a better
position to negotiate wage increases. In about June 1956, the
Employer and Intervenor met again, when the Employer stated that
it was willing to negotiate "within a short time thereafter." On
November 13, 1956, the instant petition was filed. Since late 1953 to
the present time, the Intervenor has held no meetings, processed no
grievances, has had no shop steward, and has collected no dues from
the employees.
It is well established that a collective-bargaining agreement which
is not reduced to writing and signed by the parties cannot operate as
a bar to a petition for representation. Here, there is no written
document of any kind setting forth the Employer's adoption of
the contract, but merely an oral agreement to that effect. Such oral
understanding cannot operate as a bar to a determination of
representatives.2
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning 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 appropriate unit :
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, 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 and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Newark, New Jersey, plant, excluding office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Southern Heater Corporation , 91 NLRB 1118, 1119, Sheet A lumsnum Corporation,
91 NLRB No . 53 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders) ;
Bethlehem Steel Company, 95 NLRB 1508, 1510 See also Dover Industrial Chrome, Inc,
114 NLRB 1309 , 1310 , where it was contended that the employer had adopted its prede-
cessor's contract by a certain letter, and the Board held that even if it were to be assumed
that the letter constituted an adoption of the contract , that letter , having been signed
by the employer alone , could not operate as a bar to the petition Because we base our
decision on the grounds set forth above , we find no necessity for considering other con-
tentions of the Petitioner that the contract is not a bar