Key Research & Development Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 134 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Key Research & Development Co. and United Glass
& Ceramics Workers of North America,
AFL-CIO-CLC Petitioner .. Case 4-RC-8082
May 22, 1969
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULI.OCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On February 4, 1969, the Regional Director for
Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he found appropriate a unit of all production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Penndel,
Pennsylvania plant, rejecting the Employer's
contention, inter alia , that the petition should be
dismissed because the Penndel plant was in the
process of being relocated in Pennington, New
Jersey. Thereafter, the Employer filed a request for
review which the Regional Director treated as a
Motion for Reconsideration and issued a
Supplemental Decision and Order Reopening the
Record. On March 13, 1969, the Regional Director
issued an Amended Decision and Direction of
Election, finding that as a considerable time
remained before the Penndel plant would be shut
down and a substantial number of Penndel.
employees had shown a commitment to transfer to
Pennington , an immediate election should be held
among employees at both plants. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a request for review of the Regional
Director's Amended Decision on the grounds that he
departed from established Board precedent and
made factual findings which were clearly erroneous.
The Petitioner filed opposition thereto.
On April 7, 1969, the National Labor Relations
Board by telegraphic Order granted the request for
review and stayed the election pending decision on
review. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the briefs of the parties, and makes the
following findings:
At the time the petition was filed the Employer
was engaged in the manufacture of cosmetics and
toiletries at Penndel, Pennsylvania. At the time of
the first hearing, the Employer asserted that it
planned to move these operations from Penndel,
Pennsylvania to Pennington, New Jersey, about 24
miles from Penndel. At the time of the reopened
hearing on February 26, 1969, the Employer
indicated that it planned to operate the two plants
simultaneously until May 15 when the Penndel plant
would be closed; that in the first week in March,
there would be 32 to 40 employees in Pennington
and 30 to 35 in Penndel; that by April I, there
would be 50 to 60 employees in Pennington and
about 20 in Penndel. In its brief on review, the
Employer states that as of April 14, there were 82
employees at Pennington, of whom 46 were new
hires and 36 were transferees from Penndel; that it
expected to have 6 new hires on April 15; and that it
was questionable that any additional employees
would be transferring from Penndel.
The Employer's contention that no election should
be held until after completion of the transfer of
operations to Pennington is rejected. On the basis of
the foregoing and the entire record in this case, we
find that the existing complement of employees at
Pennington is a representative and substantial one.
In the circumstances, we find that the appropriate
unit herein is all production and maintenance
employees at Pennington alone and that an
immediate election therein should be held.
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the
Regional Director in order that he may conduct an
immediate election pursuant to his Amended
Decision and Direction of Election, as modified
herein, except that the eligibility payroll period
therefor shall be that immediately preceding the
date below.'
,in order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236, N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that a corrected election
eligibility list , containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 4
within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review . The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed.
176 NLRB No. 12