John Liber & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1174 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there is an insufficient basis in the record justifying a finding that
the console operators are technical employees, it is clear that their
interests and working conditions are more closely allied with those
of the other classifications within the data processing group heretofore
excluded than with those of the production employees. We there-
fore shall exclude the console operators.'
Accordingly, 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 employees at the Employer's 400 Pike Street, Cincinnati, Ohio,
plant, excluding systems and procedures analysts, programmers,
tabulating technicians, tabulating setup men, console operators, home
workers, general office employees, professional and confidential em-
ployees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
In the alternative , the Petitioner requests that an election be directed in a separate
unit composed of the employees within the data processing group, in the event they are
excluded from the unit primarily requested . As the Petitioner has obtained no showing
of interest among these employees , we, apart from other considerations , deny its alternate
request. As the tabulating technician and the tabulating setup man assigned to the motor
list division perform the same duties as the employees within the data processing group
excluded as technical employees , we also find that they are not entitled to separate
representation apart from the data processing group employees
John Liber & Company and The Liber Association (Independ-
ent), Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-3366. May 14, 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 John Kollar, hearing of-
ficer. 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.
'General Truck Drivers Local Union, Local No 92 , herein called the Intervenor, con-
tends that the hearing officer erred in refusing to allow it to elicit evidence that the
Petitioner was Employer - dominated . As it is well established that a contention alleging
domination of a labor organization by an employer is not properly litigable in a repre-
sentation proceeding , the hearing officer 's ruling is affirmed. Bs-States Company, 117
NLRB 86.
123 NLRB No. 144.
JOHN LIBER & COMPANY 1175
. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
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.
Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer is a bar to
the petition under Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995
as it was filed within the last 60 days of the term of the contract.
The contract was signed on June 4, 1956, and was effective until De-
cember 31, 1958. Article 22 of the contract provides that ". . . all
of the terms and provision [sic] thereof shall be and remain in full
force and effect from June 4, 1956 until December 31, 1958, and suc-
cessively from year to year unless either party gives notice in writing
to the other party on or before November 1st of the then current year,
of its desire to amend or terminate the same, provided further, that
in the event any such notice is given, and in the further event that
the ten current term of this agreement shall expire before the parties
have agreed upon amendments thereto or upon the terms of a new
agreement, this agreement and all of the terms and provisions thereof
shall remain in full force and effect for an additional period of sixty
(60) days after the date of such expiration. . . ." In October 1958
the Intervenor gave notice of a desire to terminate the contract.
Pursuant to the foregoing quoted clause, the contract was auto-
matically extended on January 1, 1959, for additional 60 days. The
petition was filed on January 21. The Intervenor contends, in effect,
that under Deluxe Metal, supra, the 60-day extension period should
be treated as an "insulated" period, so that any petition filed during
that period would be untimely. We do not agree. The extension of
the contract herein was merely an interim arrangement pending the
negotiation and execution of a new agreement or modification of the
old agreement. Such an interim arrangement may not operate as
a bar.'
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: all truckdrivers at the Employer's
Alliance, Ohio, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Intervenor refuses to admit that the Petitioner is a labor organization . As it appears
that Petitioner exists for the purpose of dealing with the Employer concerning wages,
hours, grievances , rates of pay , and other conditions of employment , we find that it is a
labor organization as defined in the Act.
3 See Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers , 121 NLRB 990.
• The unit finding conforms to an agreement of the parties.