John Liber & Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 14, 1959123 N.L.R.B. 1174 (N.L.R.B. 1959) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation