Peirce & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 445 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

PEIRCE & COMPANY 445
of it find Colgate to be an Employer of any of the radio talent sought
by the Petitioner.
Nor do we, on this record, find Publicidad Astra or The Gillette
Co. to be employers of the radio talent here sought. The Petitioner
made no contention to the contrary at the reopened hearing. The sum
total of the testimony at both hearings indicates that The Gillette Co.
sponsored a United States professional baseball rebroadcast in 1953
using a local announcer, but that no specific arrangements had been
made to repeat the program in 1954. As to Astra, the record deals
only with its Gillette client as outlined, and with its arrangement with
Colgate that has been canceled.
Likewise, on this record, we do not find that Edmundo Rivera
Alvarez is an Employer, within the meaning of the Act, of the radio
talent here sought based upon the apparent delegation of hiring and di-
rectional authority to him by Radio Station WKAQ. Moreover, so
far as this record indicates, Alvarez performs no functions in con-
nection with other radio programs which in any way indicate he is
an Employer within the meaning of the Act.
We shall dismiss the petition as to Colgate, Astra, Gillette, and
Rivera Alvarez.
Accordingly we find that all employees of Radio Stations WKAQ
and WNEL, respectively, working on radio programs, including those
on Colgate-Palmolive Company sponsored programs in the San Juan,
Puerto Rico, area, as follows : actors, actresses, scriptwriters, an-
nouncers, sound effects men, disk jockeys, directors, masters of cere-
monies, narrators, commentators, controlmen, and recorders, but ex-
cluding all other employees, office clerical employees and executive, ad-
ministrative, and professional employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute separate units appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition as to Colgate-Palmolive Com-
pany, Publicidad Astra, The Gillette Co., and Edmundo Rivera
Alvarez.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
PEIRCE & COMPANY and LOCAL 576, FURNITURE WORKERS, UPHOL-
STERERS AND WOODWORKERS UNION, INDEPENDENT . Case No. 21-
CA-1525. October 22, 1954
Decision and Order
Pursuant to a motion filed by the General Counsel on May 13, 1954,
to which no objection was taken, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle,
110 NLRB No. 73.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issued, on June 15, 1954, an Order Dismissing Complaint in the above-
entitled proceeding on the ground that the charging party therein,
Local 576, Furniture Workers, Upholsterers and Woodworkers Union,
Independent, herein called Local 576, Independent, was not in compli-
ance with Section 9 (h) of the Act on March 16, 1953, the date the
complaint herein was issued. Thereafter, Local 576, Independent,
filed with the Board a request for review of the Trial Examiner's dis-
missal order. Pursuant to such request, the Board has reviewed the
Trial Examiner's ruling, and for the reasons hereafter set forth,
affirms the same.
As appears more fully from the Trial Examiner's Order Dismiss-
ing Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto, both the General
Counsel's May 13,1954, motion for dismissal, and the Trial Examiner's
order granting such motion, were predicated upon the Board's ad-
ministrative determination dated January 14, 1954, that : (1) Because
incumbents of certain officer positions in Local 576, Independent, had
failed to file non-Communist affidavits at any time before the latter part
of 1953, Local 576, Independent, had not theretofore complied with Sec-
tion 9 (h) of the Act; and (2) accordingly, any letters of compliance
issued by the Regional Director to Local 576, Independent, during the
period covered by the Board's administrative determination were
"null and void and without effect."
The request for review herein filed by Local 576, Independent, seeks,
in effect, a reconsideration by the Board of its January 14, 1954, ad-
ministrative determination of the Union's compliance status. Such
request however, raises no issues not previously considered by the
Board in connection with its January 14, 1954, determination. It is
therefore denied.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that on the basis of aforesaid
administrative determination by the Board, Local 576, Independent,
was not in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (h) of
the Act on the date the complaint herein was issued, and that such
complaint should therefore be dismissed.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER MuRDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
IN. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co., 341 U. S. 322.
Order Dismissing Complaint
On a charge filed October 13, and amended October 17, 1952, by Local 576,
Furniture Workers, Upholsterers and Woodworkers Union, Independent, the Regional
Director, Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued a complaint on
March 16, 1953, alleging that Respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain in
good faith with the Charging Union from and after October 3, 1952, thereby pro-
longing a strike of its employees. The complaint as amended and particularized
NASH-KELVINATOR CORPORATION 447
at the hearing further alleged discrimination with request to certain employees, and
various acts of interference with, and restraint of, employees.
On May 5, 1953, hearing on the complaint was opened, and thereafter continued
on various dates by the Trial Examiner, duly designated to conduct the proceeding.
On July 17, 1953, counsel for the General Counsel requested the Board's permis-
sion to appeal from certain rulings made in the course of hearing by the Trial
Examiner. To allow counsel time to prepare arguments and briefs on the subject
of the interim appeal, the hearing was recessed, to be resumed upon order of the
Trial Examiner, upon the motion of any party.
On January 14, 1954, the Board held in Compliance Status of Furniture Workers,
Upholsterers and Woodworkers Union, Local 576, Independent, 107 NLRB 872,
Administrative Determination of Compliance Status, that the Charging Union herein
"was not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act during the period when the
incumbents of [certain] positions did not have on file the affidavits therein pre-
scribed." The Board also found that "all incumbents of these positions failed to
file non-Communistic affidavits until the latter part of 1953."
Consequently, on March 16, 1953, the date of issuance of the complaint herein,
the Charging Union was not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act, and
the issuance of the said complaint was invalid under Section 9 (h) of the Act.
On May 13, 1954, the General Counsel addressed a formal request to the Board,
asking that he be permitted to withdraw the aforementioned request for permission
to appeal from Trial Examiner's ruling and argument in support thereof, and that
the proceeding be remanded to the Trial Examiner for the purpose of enabling
the Trial Examiner to rule on a motion of the General. Counsel to dismiss the
complaint herein because of the noncompliance of the Charging Union, as set
forth above. On the same date, the General Counsel filed with the undersigned
the above-mentioned motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 24, 1954, the Board by order permitted the General Counsel to withdraw
the "Request for Permission to Appeal from Trial Examiner's Rulings and Argument
in Support Thereof."
Wherefore, upon the entire record herein, the Board's administrative determina-
tion of compliance status of the above-named Union, dated January 14, 1954, and
upon motion of the General Counsel, no party opposing,
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint herein, issued on March 16, 1953, as finally
amended, be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
NASH-KELVINATOR CORPORATION , BODY PLANT #6 and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS , LOCAL 125, AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 13-RC-3833. October 00, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William F. Trent,
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. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks to sever a powerhouse unit from the produc-
tion and maintenance unit currently represented by the Intervenor,
110 NLRB No. 62.