Marchant Calculating Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 442 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of MARCHANT CALCULATING MACHINE CO., EMPLOYER and
MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 2-RC-159.-Decided November 19, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed, except as noted.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question of representation 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 2
The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., its District
No 4, and its Local 1237, based their right to intervene in this proceeding upon a contract
executed by the Local and the Employer. We find that this contract was terminated as
of January 19, 1948, by letter notice of termination directed to the Employer on November
17, 1947, after the November meeting of Local 1237 As the U. E, its District 4 and its
Local 1237 had no contractual interest at the time of the hearing and had not complied
with the filing requirements of the Act, their intervention was improper Matter of
Remington Rand, Inc., 78 N. L. R. B. 181, and Matter of Dictaphone Corporation, 78
N. L. R B 866, in which, in similar circumstances, we held that contracts involving these
intervenors had terminated. The petition in this case was filed January 30, 1948. We
find that there is no contract bar to this proceeding.
*Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock.
2 The Board's jurisdiction in this representation proceeding is in no way affected by
the issuance of New Jersey and New York State court interim restraining orders against
certain former members and officers of Local 1237, one of whom has become the business
representative of the Petitioner. Compare Matter of Elk Horn Coal Co., 64 N. L. R. B.
1563, where the Board exercised jurisdiction without the leave of State receivership
courts.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 86.
442
MARCHANT CALCULATING MACHINE Co. 443
4. In its amended petition the Petitioner requested a combined unit
of servicemen in the Employer's New York and Brooklyn offices. The
manager of Employer's New York City office testified that the Brook-
lyn office, which was established in July 1947 with a nucleus of per-
sonnel from the New York office, has its own territory and is as
independent of the New York office as the Newark and other nearby
offices of the Employer. Since establishment of the Brooklyn office
there have been no transfers or interchange of employees, and super-
vision of each office is entirely separate. We find separate units appro-
priate in these circumstances. Counsel for the Petitioner has stated its
willingness to go to an election on this basis. The following employees
of the Employer constitute units appropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
(a) All servicemen of the Employer at its New York City office,
excluding clerical employees and supervisors as defined in the Act;
(b) All servicemen of the Employer at its Brooklyn, New York,
office, excluding clerical employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elec-
tions by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not
later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which
this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as
amended, among the employees in the units found appropriate in
paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elec-
tions, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off,
but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date
of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not
entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Mechanical
and Electrical Workers Union of America.3
'In accordance with our holding in Matter of Herman Loewenstein , Inc., 75 N. L.
R B 377, the Intervenor will not be placed on the ballot because of their non-compliance.
Our holding in Matter of Harris Foundry A Machine Co., 76 N . L. R. B. 118, urged by
the intervenors , is applicable only to decertification proceedings.