Mine and Mill Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1536 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
,the case , the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 222, International Hod Carriers ' Building & Common Laborers' Union
of America , AFL-CIO; United Mine Workers of America; and Local- 172, Inter-
national Hod Carriers ' Building & Common Laborers' Union of America.. AFL-CIO,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discharging George Basher on July 11, 1956, thus discriminating in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment because he had engaged in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual - aid or protection of
employees and because of his activities on behalf of Local 222, International Hod
Carriers ' Building & Common Laborers ' Union of America, AFL-CIO, the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has committed unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Mine and Mill Supply Company, Petitioner and Local #35,
International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO.' Case No.
12-NM-7. October 4, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Rose Mary Filipowicz, hear-
ing 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 Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers].
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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
On June 1, 1956, Local #35, was certified as bargaining representa-
tive of employees at the Employer's Lakeland, Florida, plant. The
Employer and Local #35 engaged in bargaining negotiations' for a
period of approximately 5 months and on October 15, 1956, Local #35
:Hereinafter called Local ##S5.
118 NLRB No. 210.
THE R. C. MAHON COMPANY 1537
struck the Employer's plant. The strike was still in effect at the time
of the hearing in the instant case. The Employer contends that Local
#35 no longer represents a majority of its employees and seeks an
election to determine its majority status.
The Board's records show that the compliance of Local #35 with
the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act has lapsed, and, there-
fore, the only question presented is whether or not the Board will pro-
ceed to an election on the basis of the Employer's petition which, in
effect, requests an investigation of the question concerning represen-
tation raised by a labor organization which has not complied with the
filing requirements of the Act.
The Board, on similar facts, has previously interpreted Section
9 (h) of the Act as prohibiting investigation of questions concerning
representation raised by noncomplying labor organizations, whether
instituted by petitions filed by such labor organizations or by em-
ployers 2 Accordingly, as in the instant case, Local #35 is not in com-
pliance with the filing requirements of the Act, we find no question
concerning representation exists and shall dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 Herman Loewenstein, Inc., 75 NLRB 377.
8 For the reasons stated in his dissent to Darling and Company, 116 NLRB 374, Member
Rodgers would reverse the Loewenstein decision and direct an election in this case, but,
regardless of the outcome of such election, would certify only the arithmetical results.
The it C. Mahon Company and Arthur J. Bussel , Edmund
Warznie, Claude V. Peters, Harry Stonkoff , Edward Schmidt,
Joseph E . Williams, Melvin L. Stanton , and Ernest Williams
The R. C. Mahon Company and International Union , United Plant
Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local No.
114. Cases Nos. 7-CA-12921, 7-CA-12921-1, 7-CA-1921-2, 7-CA-
1221-3, 7-CA-1221-4, 7-CA-1221-5, 7-CA-1221-6, 7-CA-1221-7,
and 7-CA-1225. October 7, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 12, 1956, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued
his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and had not engaged
in certain other alleged unfair labor practices, and recommending
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
118 NLRB No. 207.
450553-58-vol. 118-98