Pearl Curtains, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1120 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represent them separatelys we shall include them in the unit found
appropriate . We shall likewise include in the unit the two full-time
mechanics and the regular part-time mechanic.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees,,
including truckdrivers and helpers, and mechanics, at the Employer's
dairy processing plant and meat-processing plant at Warren, Ohio,
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 Channel Master Corporation, 114 NLRB 1486; Sunnyiand Packing Company, etc., 110=
NLRB 162 ; Thomas Electronics, Inc., 107 NLRB 614.
Pearl Curtains, Inc.' and Olga Melendez, Petitioner.' Case No. 0-
UD-. 5. August 21, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Julian J. Hoffman,
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 panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, 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 .1
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The contract, as amended, is effective by its terms to July 1,1958_
The petition for union deauthorization was filed on November 30,,
i The ' petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to reflect the Employer'sn
correct name . In view of a written disclaimer of interest in the petition by Esther
Martinez, a cosigner .of the original petition , we shall amend the petition and other formal
papers herein by deleting therefrom the name of this individual.
2 The Union objected to the hearing officer 's acceptance of evidentiary material in the.
form of letters from companies doing business with the Employer as commerce data. We-
are satisfied that the hearing officer 's ruling accords with Board policy, and it is accordingly
affirmed . See Pacific Tent 4 Awning Co., 97 NLRB 640; F. M. Reeves & Sons, Inc., 112'
NLRB 296 . The Union also challenged the Petitioner 's showing of interest . The suf-
ficency of a petitioner 's showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to,
litigation , and we are furthermore administratively satisfied that the Petitioner 's showing-
of interest is adequate . 0. D. Jennings 4 Company, 66 NLRB 516.
8 During the past year the Employer furnished services in excess of $100 , 000 in value to,
firms which annually ship goods valued in excess of $50 ,000 to points outside the State-
of New York . We therefore find that it will further the purposes and policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction in the instant case. Pazan Motor Freight, Inc., 116 NLRB 1668-
118 NLRB No. 151.
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 1121
1956. The Union's principal contention is that the existing union-
security agreement should be held effective for the remainder of
its term. That contention was made in Great Atlantic c6 Pacific
Tea Company, 100 NLRB 1494, and rejected by a majority of the
Board on the ground that "only by holding that an affirmative deauth--
orization vote immediately relieves employees of the obligations
imposed by an existing union-security agreement. can the Board give
effect to the basic congressional objective, unchanged by amendments
directed solely at procedural relief, of not imposing a union-security
agreement upon an unwilling majority." The policy thus established
has consistently been followed by the Board 4 We therefore find no,
merit in this contention.'
4. We find that all production, shipping, and maintenance employees
at the Employer's curtains and drapery manufacturing plant in New-
York City, New York, excluding office clerical employees, sales employ-
ees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of an election under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act..
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 Truth Tool Company, 111 NLRB 642; Hydraulics Unlimited Manufacturing Co., 107-
NLRB 1646 ; Accurate Molding Corporation , 107 NLRB 1087 ; F. W. Woolworth Company,.
107 NLRB 671.
5 The Union contends that the Petitioner failed to introduce any proof that the Union
was the legally constituted bargaining representative at the time the contract was executed.
The Union did not, however , dispute that it in fact was the legally constituted bargaining
representative at all times material , and under the circumstances , the presumption of
legality remained unrebutted . The Union 's contention that the petition did not encompass
the same unit as set forth in the contract is not supported by the evidence . The Union's
further contention that the withdrawal of one of the joint petitioners vitiated the petition
is likewise without merit , as there is no indication in the record that the authority of the-
other petitioning employee has been withdrawn.
The General Industries Company, Petitioner and Mechanics Edu-
cational Society of America, AFL-CIO 1 and Independent Motor-
Workers Union z Case No. 8-RM-165. August 21, 1957
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 W. R. Griesbach,'hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and, except as noted, are hereby affirmed 3
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 Rodgers and Bean].
i Herein referred to as M. E. S. A.
z Herein referred to as the Independent.
'The contention of M. E . S. A. as to the adequacy of the Independent 's compliance
with Section 9 (f) and (g) of the Act involves administrative matters not cognizable in
118 NLRB No. 153.
450553-58-vol. 118-72