Kerstetter Silk Throwing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 335 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

KERSTETTER SILK THROWING CO., INC. 335
KERSTETTER SILK THROWING Co., INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS
OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-KC-1875. March 5,
1953
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 Bernard Samoff,
hearing officer. 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 Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor, Textile Workers of America, CIO, herein called
tae CIO, contends that its current 3-year contract with the Employer,
effective until March 15, 1954, bars a present determination of repre-
sentatives. The record does not show that a substantial part of the
Employer's industry is covered by contracts for a 3-year term. Ac-
cordingly, as the current contract has been in effect for almost 2 years,
we find that it is not a bar to this proceeding.' We also 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.
4. The Petitioner and the Employer stipulated that the unit covered
by the current contract between the Employer and the CIO is appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The CIO contends
that a multiemployer unit of the employees of the six companies who
are are members of the Wyoming Valley Throwsters Labor Committee a
is appropriate. If, however, the Board should find such a multiem-
ployer unit to be inappropriate, then it agreed that a single-employer
unit is appropriate.
For reasons fully set out in our recent decisions in Franklin Throw-
ing Company, 101 NLRB 153, 101 NLRB 737, in which we discussed
in detail this multiemployer bargaining, we find a unit limited to the
employees of this Employer the appropriate unit.
1 General Motors Corporation, Detroit Transmission Division, 102 NLRB 1140;
Ballance Manufacturing Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1019.
2 On May 1, 1951, the CIO and its Penn-Appalachian Joint Board entered into an agree-
ment with the Wyoming Valley Throwsters Labor Committee providing for a joint welfare
program, covering the employees of the six companies.
103 NLRB No. 29.
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer 's Mocanaqua , Pennsylvania , plant , excluding executives, mana-
gers, foremen, assistant foremen , foreladies , assistant foreladies,
chauffeurs, truckdrivers, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, confidential employees, guards, and supervisors, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
PALMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UAW-CIO, PETITIONER.'
Case No. 21-RC-0807. March 5, 1953
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 P. J. Driscoll, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
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 Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer g
3. Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election in-
volving the Employer's plant,4 an election and runoff election were
respectively conducted on November 16 and 30, 1951. The results
of the election determined that neither of the contesting unions re-
ceived a majority of the valid votes cast .5 On December 5, 1951, the
petitioning labor organization filed objections to the conduct of the
election and, upon the recommendations of the Regional Director, the
Board on April 23, 1952, overruled these objections.° At the present
time no bargaining representative has been certified or recognized for
i The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
The Employer's motion to dismiss is denied for reasons hereinafter stated.
s At the hearing International Association of Machinists , District Lodge No. 49, and
Local Union 359, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, were permitted to
intervene.
4 Case No. 21-RC-2083, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
8 Participating in the election were International Association of Machinists, District
Lodge No. 49, and the present Petitioner.
6 Case No. 31-RC-2083, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
103 NLRB No. 18.