National Oats Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 623 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

NATIONAL OATS COMPANY 623
NATIONAL OATS COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GRAIN
MILLERS, LOCAL 167, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 14-RC-1278.
October 28,1954
Supplemental Decision and Order
On March 26, 1951, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding,' in which it found appropri-
ate a unit of laborers, excluding, among others, operators whom the
Intervenor, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 149,
AFL, herein called the Engineers, has been representing in a separate
unit since 1937.2 Thereafter, the Board conducted an election in the
laborers' unit. The Petitioner won the election and was duly cer-
tified as the exclusive bargaining representative of these employees.
On June 11, 1954, the Employer filed a motion to reopen this
proceeding for the purpose of clarifying the unit placement of an
employee filling a new position of forklift truck operator. The
Board, on July 9, 1954, ordered the proceeding reopened and re-
manded it to.the Region for further hearing on the issues raised by
the motion. Pursuant to that order, the reopened hearing was con-
ducted on August 3, 1954, before Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer.
The Petitioner, the Employer, and the Engineers appeared and par-
ticipated. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded the parties.
The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's rulings made at the
reopened hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the evi-
dence adduced at the reopened hearing, as well as the entire record
in this case, including the briefs of the parties, and makes the findings
noted below. `
The Employer, sometime in April 1954, for the first time acquired a
forklift truck to move raw materials from freight cars to warehouses.
The forklift truck is operated only for about 3 hours each day. The
Employer assigned this job to a pellet machine operator, who is with-
in the operators' unit represented by the Engineers. This employee
continues to spend most of his workday as a pellet machine operator.
193 NLRB 939.
s The Board , however, found that the laborers ' and operators ' units might be merged
in a single unit but because of their separate bargaining history declined to do so without
a self-determination election for the employees in the operators ' unit, Since the Peti-
tioner failed to establish the necessary showing of interest among the operators ' group,
such election was not ordered.
110 NLRB No. 93.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner insists that the operation of the forklift truck
properly belongs to the laborers' unit which it represents.' We do
not pass on that question. However, as the pellet machine operator
who drives the forklift truck spends the majority of his time perform-
ing work functions clearly within the historical operators' unit, we
find that he is excluded from the certified unit of laborers.'
[The Board granted the Employer's request for clarification of the
unit and accordingly excluded the pellet machine operator from the
appropriate unit.]
30n April 27, 1954, the Petitioner filed 8 ( a) (5) charges against the Employer in
Case No. 14-CA-1189 for unilaterally assigning the forklift truck job to a pellet machine
operator . The Regional Director, on May 19, 1954, dismissed the charges on the ground
that the Employer had a right to assign the work to this employee.
4 See Eastern Iron & Metal Company, 106 NLRB 1261.
AXELSON MANUFACTURING CO., DIVISION OF PRESSED STEEL CAR COM-
PANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Dis-
TRICT LODGE No. 94, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-3686.
October 28,1964
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 Arthur Hailey, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, moved to intervene on
the basis of a showing of interest. The Petitioner opposed the inter-
vention on the grounds that the International was fronting for Local
Union No. 5042, a noncomplying local union. The local union has
a charter and temporary officers, and has held meetings. Moreover,
in a recent bulletin the local referred to itself as "functioning." We
find that the local is sufficiently in the picture as a labor organization
to require that it comply with Sections 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Intervenor's appearance on this ballot shall be con-
ditioned upon its local achieving compliance within 2 weeks after the
issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election.'
3. A 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.
1 Franklin Tanning Company, 104 NLRB 192 , at 194.
110 NLRB No. 92.