International Aluminum Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1221 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM CORPORATION 1221
.International Aluminum Corporation , Petitioner and Shopmen's
Local Union No. 682, International Association of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No.
9-ISM-140. April 17,1957
DECISION, ORDER, -AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas M. Sheeran, 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
On September 28, 1956, the Employer filed its petition for an elec-
tion. At the hearing, which took place October 30,1956, the Employer
moved that no election be held within 90 days from the date of the
hearing because of an expanding unit and because of the expectation
.of new machinery and new job classifications. The Union consented
to this request in order to expedite the proceedings. On January 3,
1957, within the 90-day waiting period, the Employer moved, in a
motion to the Board, that no election be ordered and that the case be
reopened on the ground that the Union had never made a sufficient
showing of interest among the employees in the appropriate unit.
On January 10, 1957, the Union responded to the motion, requesting
an immediate election.
On January 29, 1957, the Board issued a ruling on motion. The
Board found that, although a showing of interest is not required in a
proceeding based on a petition filed by an employer,' the Employer's
motion in this case should be construed as a request to withdraw the
petition, and the Union's response, as a cross-petition. The Board
therefore ordered that, unless the Union within 10 days from the date
of the ruling presented the Regional Director with evidence of a cur-
rent 30 percent showing of interest in the employees sought to be
represented, the Employer's motion would be granted. The Board
further ordered that if the Union made such a showing, the Board
would order an immediate election.
Upon reconsideration of the Employer's motion to withdraw its
petition, we have decided to set aside our former order requiring the
union to make the 30-percent showing among the employees sought to
be represented. We are of the opinion that the analogy to an inter-
1 Felton Ott Company , 78 NLRB 1033
117 NLRB No. 169.
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
venor who opposes the withdrawal of a petition in a representation
case brought by a union 2 is not applicable to employer petitions.
Since an employer is not required to make any showing of the Union's
interest when it files a representation petition, the Union should not
thereafter be required to make such showing to insure an election when
the Employer wishes to withdraw its petition. Moreover, this view is
particularly compelling in the instant case as the Union consented to
the Employer's request to postpone the election.' In addition, the
Regional Director's investigation reveals that the job status of many
employees has changed since the filing of the petition which places
additional burdens on the Union at this time. Under the circum-
stances herein, we therefore shall not require the Union to make the
30-percent showing of interest at this time, but shall proceed with an
immediate election.4 Accordingly, the Employer's motion is hereby
denied.
4. The appropriate unit :
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's New
Albany, Indiana, plant but excluding office clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards,' and all supervisors as defined in the Act.6
[The Board set aside the ruling on motion issued on January 29,
1957.]
[Text of Direction of Election ° omitted from publication.]
2 See Henry L Pen one et als d/b/a Alloy Mann!actvrtng Company, 107 NLRB 1201-2
3 See Mississippi Palley Strnctu,al Steel Co., 115 NLRB 1288, footnote 1, in which the
Board, in denying requests for the withdi awal of petitions, has given weight to equitable
considerations
4 insofar as this holding is inconsistent with prior cases, they are hereby overruled
c At the hearing, the psi ties agreed to include the night watchman on the ground that
he carried no arms However, as the retold shows that his duties ale to watch the
plant, we find that he is it guard within the meaning of the Act and exclude him from
the unit
° The Employer would include the working electrician whom the Union would exclude
on the ground that lie is either supervisory or managerial. The evidence shows that this
man is a brother of the chairman of the board of the Employer: that in the past, when
engaged in construction and remodeling work at the plant lie has had several people
working under him, but that at the time of the hearing he worked alone or with a helper
doing electrical work We find on the basis of the record that, as the electrician does not
exercise supervisory duties and probably will not do so in the foreseeable future, lie is
not a supervisor. Nor do we find that his relationship to the chairman of the board in
and of itself makes him a managerial employee International Metal Products Company,
107 NLRB 65-67 Accordingly , we shall include him.
7 The Union contends that certain laid off employees are eligible to vote in the election
herein directed . The record shows that a group of 6 men were laid off on September 4,
1956, and another group of 15 nien on September 13. On September 26, the Union struck
for recognition A few workers have been hired since that date The Employer contends
that although the laid-off men were not informed that they were permanently discharged,
it intends not to rehire them , either on the ground of incompetency or because the con-
struction and remodeling on which they wee engaged has been completed Accordingly,
as they have no prospects of reemployment in the foreseeable future, they are not eligible
to vote in the election