Nor-Cote, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 468 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election at this time would only result in a frustration of the
settlement agreement. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition."
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
s In view of the dismissal of the petition , we do not reach or resolve the voting
eligibility of certain employees which was in dispute.
Detroit Processing Terminal Division , Nor-Cote, Inc.' and Truck
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union No. 299,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind.,2 Petitioner.
Case No. 7-IBC-6508. March 8, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Jack G.
Handler. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
the Petitioner and the Intervenor filed briefs with the Regional
Director, and the Intervenor filed a brief with the Board.
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 McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of certain employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons :
The Employer operates a metal treating plant at Warren, Michi-
gan, where the employees are represented by a union which is not
a party to these proceedings. In June 1964 the Employer acquired
a foundry building in Detroit, fronting on the Detroit River,
with the intention of converting it into a marine terminal and
warehousing facility. Approximately 22 men were hired in labor-
1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 The Petitioner' s name appears as amended at the hearing
$ Local 46 of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of its contractual interest in the unit.
151 NLRB No. 54.
DETROIT PROCESS. TERMINAL DIV., NOR-COTE, INC. 469
ing classifications to work on the building and adjacent dock. The
Employer plans to complete outfitting the Detroit property for use
as a shipping and warehouse terminal by April 15, the beginning
of the 1965 shipping season. These plans, however, are to some
extent contingent upon the Employer obtaining an adjoining parcel
of property from the city of Detroit. If it obtains the additional
property, the Employer plans to use the Detroit site exclusively
as a marine terminal with facilities for unloading three ships at
a time. If, however, it does not succeed in obtaining the adjoining
property, the Employer may operate a one-ship terminal and
expand its metal treating operations to the Detroit property.
In August 1964 the Employer recognized the Intervenor and
entered into a contract covering its Detroit employees. In Septem-
ber 1964 the Petitioner filed its petition for a unit of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees. At the time of the hear-
ing, November 24, 1964, the Employer still had approximately 22
employees there.
The Intervenor asserts that its contract is a bar to the petition.
The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because the
number of employees at work in August 1964 was not representative,
nor a substantial segment, of the employees who will eventually
be working at the marine terminal and warehouse .4 We do not pass
on this contention for, as discussed below, other grounds exist
for dismissing the petition.
The Petitioner does not seek an election among the 20 or so
employees presently employed, since it agrees with the Intervenor
that there is not yet a representative number of employees in
permanent job classifications at the Detroit facility. Instead, the
Petitioner would have the Board hold its petition in abeyance,
as we have done in a number of cases, and direct an election when
there is a representative and substantial employee complement,
subject to an adequate showing of interest among the employees
then employed.-5 At the hearing, the Intervenor moved to dismiss
the petition as premature.
As a partical matter, the difference between holding the petition
in abeyance, as suggested by the Petitioner, and its immediate
dismissal , is that under the former procedure a second hearing
would not have to be held. The procedure suggested by the Peti-
tioner is suitable when the nature and composition of the unit is
sufficiently known even before a representative and substantial com-
plement of employees is hired, so that all relevant issues affecting
the unit may be resolved in advance. However, such a procedure
6 Cf. General Extrusion Company, Inc., etc., 121 NLRB 1165.
S See e.g. J. if. Simplot Co ., Food Processing Division, Heyburn Operations , 130 NLRB
272; Gordon B. Irvine, 124 NLRB 217; Armstrong Cork Company , 115 NLRB 1578.
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is not suitable where, as here, the future scope and composition
of the unit is in substantial doubt, making it impossible to resolve
unit questions now, and giving rise to the danger of prejudice
to other parties who may have an interest therein. In the instant
case , we do not know what types of employees will be employed
and what the nature of their skills and duties will be.° Accordingly,
we shall grant the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition as
premature.7
[The Board dismissed the petition without prejudice to the filing
of a new petition at a time when a representative and substantial
complement of employees exists at the Detroit facility.]
See Armstrong Cork Cempnay, supra, at 1580.
7S * G. Adams Company, 107 NLRB 348; Cramet, Inc., 112 NLRB 975; The Lindsay
Wire Weaving Company, 116 NLRB 456; Slater System Maryland, Inc., 134 NLRB 865.
Huttig Sash and Door Company and Local Union 1469, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 11-CA-1456. March 9, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 7, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
151 NLRB No. 56.