National Clay Products Co., et al

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 137 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

NATIONAL CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY 137
NATIONAL CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY, ET AL.1 and DISTRICT COUNCIL
No. 2, OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ILLINOIS , UNITED BRICK AND CLAY
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos . 14-RC-1485,
_1486, 1488, 1488, 1.490, and 14-RC-1536 to 14-RC 1540. February
15, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed, a hearing was held before Milton 0.
'Talent, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial 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
Tanel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Employers moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that
-the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act. We find this contention to be without merit. It is
not disputed that the Petitioner satisfies that portion of the Act's defi-
nition of a "labor organization" 3 which requires that the organization
in question exist "for the purpose in whole or in part, of dealing with
,employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work." Apparently the Em-
ployers' motion is based on the contention that the Petitioner is merely
a servicing arm of the United Brick and Clay Workers of America,
AFL, and of the locals in the area affiliated with that union, and that it
therefore does not satisfy the statutory requirement that a labor organi-
zation must be one in which "employees participate."
i The petitions herein were consolidated by order of the Regional Director on October 8,
1951, and involve the following Employers , whose names appear as amended at the hearing :
National Clay Products Company ; Richards Brick Company ; Alton Brick Company (Mary-
land Heights , Missouri , plant) ; Alton Brick Company ( Alton , Illinois , plant ) ; Hill Brick
Company ; Springfield Clay Products Company, The Conco-Meler Company ; Sheffield Shale
Products Company ; Springfield Clay Products Company, d /b/a Shale Products Company ;
and Purington Brick and Tile Company.
2 Certain of the Employers moved to dismiss the instant petitions alleging that there was
a nonjoinder of parties because the International Union with which the Petitioner is
affiliated is a signatory to certain of the contracts alleged as a bar and was not joined as a
party to the proceeding . The local unions, which are signatories to each of these contracts,
appeared at the hearing and the record shows that the Petitioner 's representative at the
hearing was empowered to represent the International , if the International had so desired.
we find therefore that adequate opportunity for representation at the hearing was afforded
to all interested and necessary parties. For this reason , and because the Employer has
failed to show how, in any event , s t was prejudiced by the failure to join the International,
the motion to dismiss on that ground is denied
8 Section 2 ( 5) of the Act defines a "labor organization " as "any organization of any kind,
or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate
and which exists for the purpose , in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning
grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment, or conditions of work."
98 NLRB No. 17.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.
It is true that in the past the Petitioner has confined itself to assist-
ing certain locals of the Brick and Clay Workers in negotiating con-
tracts, and providing related administrative services for those unions.
At this time, however, the Petitioner has filed a petition seeking to
represent employees directly and has obtained from among those em-
ployees designation cards for the purpose of making the requisite ad-
ministrative showing of interest. On the record as a whole we are
satisfied that the Petitioner now intends to operate in a manner that
will permit participation by the employees of the instant Employers
and, if successful in the elections directed herein, to bargain collectively
for such employees. We find nothing in the record which indicates
that the Petitioner is inherently incapable of doing so. Accordingly,
we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization and that it claims to
represent certain of the Employers' employees.4
3. The question concerning representation :
For approximately the past 10 years each of the Employers and
various locals of the Brick and Clay Workers have entered into indi-
vidual collective bargaining contracts. The latest of these contracts
were executed in 1950. Some were for 2-year periods. Others, while
executed for 1 year, have since been renewed for an additional year.
The Employers contend that these individual contracts are bars to the
instant petitions. We do not agree. Apart from any other consider-
ations, we note that in all cases but one the contracts will either expire
in less than 45 days, or the automatic renewal date, prior to which a
petition was filed, has already passed. In such circumstances the
Board does not hold a contract to be a bar.5 The one contract remain-
ing has provisions which in substance make it terminable at will,s
and it likewise cannot operate as a bar.'
Accordingly, we find that questions affecting cominerce exist con-
cerning the representation of the employees of the Employers within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units :
The parties stipulated, and we find, that separate units of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees of each of the Employers listed in foot-
note 1 excluding, in each case, office and professional employees, guards,
4 The motion of Alton Brick Company (Maryland Heights, Missouri , plant) to dismiss on
the ground that the Petitioner is unable to represent their employees because their plant is
located outside of the Petitioner's geographical jurisdiction is likewise denied. In the
absence of evidence proving that the Petitioner will not accord effective representation, the
Board will not inquire into a union 's alleged geographical limitations. Fox Deluxe Foods,
Inc, 96 NLRB 1132
See W. S Tyler Company, 93 NLRB 523: Efco Manufacturing Inc., 97 NLRB 263
e This contract involves National Clay Products Company. It is effective indefinitely
from May 1950, but provides that either party may at any time give- 30 days' notice to
renegotiate, in which event the contract terminates 30 days after such notice is received by
the other party.
4 See Texas Telephone Company, 93 NLRB 741; Container Corporation of America, 87
NLRB 1345.
THE PURE OIL COMPANY 139
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the amended Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act."
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Early in the hearing all parties stipulated to the appropriateness of this twit , reserving
the right to litigate the question of whether certain fringe categories should be included In
the unit . Subsequently , certain of the Employers indicated an objection to the inclusion of
outside truck drivers and maintenance bricklayers . However , no evidence was taken during
the hearing as to their duties or the duties of any other specific categoty of employees. Thus
we can make no determination with respect to the inclusion of any fringe groups at this
time. We leave such determination to subsequent proceedings if necessary.
THE PURE OIL COIIPANY 1 and DISTRICT 31, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 39-RC-381. February
5,1952
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 Eimer Davis, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial 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 Murdock and Styles].
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
employees of the Employer 3
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the ^neaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The Petitioner seeks to include, in its present unit of machinists
and other employees employed in the mechanical, handymen, and serv-
ice departments of the Employer, a group of fixed helpers, or ma-
1 The name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 See The Pure Oil Company, 55 NLRB 1455.
8 The Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 228, hereinafter referred to as the
Intervenor , was permitted to intervene upon the basis of its contractual interest.
4 The Intervenor moves to dismiss the petition herein on the ground that Its contract
dated December 21, 1950 , having as its earliest termination date December 15, 1951, is a
bar to this proceeding . As the petition was filed on October 12 , 1951, approximately
2 months before the termination date of the agreement , we find that the contract is not
a bar. Accordingly , the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss Is denied.
98 NLRB No. 18.