International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 325 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
SAM MARCHESE, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, UNION
Case No. 16-RD-9.-Decided April 23, 1948
Messrs. Frank B. Schwarer and R. F. Graham, both of Chicago, Ill.,
and Mr. C . T. Helin, of Houston, Tex., for the Employer.
Mr. Sam Marchese , of Houston , Tex., for the Petitioner.
Mr. L. M. Fagan , of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. J. W. Ray, of Hous-
ton, Tex., for the Union.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Houston,
Texas, on January 28, 1948, before Charles Y. Latimer, 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 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
International Harvester Company is a New Jersey Corporation
whose general offices are located in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in
the manufacture of trucks, farm equipment, refrigeration, and indus-
trial power equipment in several States, and operates branch houses
and distributing points for its products in most of the States of the
Union. Its branch house, located in Houston, Texas, which alone is
involved here, serves as a sales outlet for the Employer's products
which are shipped to the Houston branch from the Employer's plants
outside the State. In the past year sales at the Houston branch
exceeded one million dollars.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection kith this case to a three -man panel consisting of the undersigned
Board Members [ Houston, Murdock , and Gray].
77 N. L. R. B , No. 45.
325
788886-49-vol 77-22
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED
The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union
is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees as defined
in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
The Union, a labor organization, was established on October 5,
1945, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees as a result of a consent election.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 5, 1945, as noted above, the Union became the exclusive
representative of the Employer's employees as a result of a consent
election. On December 4, 1945, the Employer executed an agreement
with the Union for the term of 1 year, with provision for renewal from
year to year thereafter unless notice to terminate or modify was given
by either party at least 30 days prior to the terminal date of the
contract. Neither party gave notice in 1946, and the contract was
automatically renewed for another year. On October 3, 1947, and
again on November 4, 1947, the Union notified the Employer of its
desire to renegotiate the contract. Under the terms of the contract
these notices automatically extended the life of the contract 60 days
beyond the terminal date unless a new agreement was reached sooner.
No agreement on the terms of a new contract was reached between the
Employer and the Union, and on November 28, 1947, the, Petitioner
filed the instant petition to decertify the Union. The Union contends
that its contract of December 4, 1945, as extended, is a bar to the instant
proceeding. We find, however, that the petition was timely filed, and
the contract is therefore not a bar.2
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. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner and the Employer contend that the appropriate unit
is properly defined in the contract of December 4, 1945, as consisting
of all mechanics, helpers, and apprentices, but excluding office and
clerical employees, parts department employees, the service station
foreman, and the service station assistant foreman, all other super-
visors, and all other employees of the Employer's Houston, Texas,
branch. The Union agrees with this definition except that it wishes
2 Matter of Drewrys Limited U . S A Inc., 74 N . L. R. B. 31.
The Union's contention that the contract remains in effect until one of the parties gives
notice to terminate is without merit inasmuch as the effect might be to prolong the
contract indefinitely.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 327
to include the janitors working in the Employer's motor truck service
shop. These janitors work in the same room, under the same super-
vision, and under the same working conditions as the employees cov-
ered by the contract unit. Their duties, however, are janitorial, and
are unrelated to those of the employees covered by the contract init.
There are janitors in other departments of the Employer's Houston,
Texas, plant whom the Union does not seek to represent. Inasmuch
as the janitors do not have the same interests as the mechanics, and
were excluded from the unit as defined in the consent election and in
the contract between the Employer and the Union,3 the janitors will
be excluded from the unit.
We find that all mechanics, helpers, and apprentices of the Em-
ployer's Houston, Texas, branch, excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, parts department employees, the service station foreman, the
service station assistant foreman, all other supervisors, guards, and
professional employees, as defined in the amended Act, and all other
employees of the Employer's Houston, Texas, branch, constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with International Harvester Com-
pany, Houston, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth 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 ap-
propriate 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 ex-
cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of this
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 Association of Machinists, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
'Matter of The Ellis Canning Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 384; Matter of Union Iron
Works, 67 N L. R B 772 ; Matter of Fairbanks , Morse & Co , 66 N L R B 673.
4 This is virtually the same unit as that defined in the collective bargaining agreement
between the Union and the Employer . The description of the unit has been changed
slightly to conform with the provisions of the amended Act,