Perfect Circle Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 725 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

PERFECT CIRCLE CORPORATION 725
Perfect Circle Corporation ,' Plant *5, Machining Plant, Rich-
mond , Indiana and Walter Campbell and Clara B . Freihofer,
Petitioners and Local 832, International Union , United Auto-
mobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, CIO
Perfect Circle Corporation , Plant * 6, Sleeve - Casting Plant,
Richmond , Indiana and Ray Brookshire , Petitioner and Local
1203, International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, CIO
Perfect Circle Corporation , Hagerstown, Indiana , Plant and
Charles O'Brien , Petitioner and Local 156, International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America , CIO. Cases Nos. 35-RD-63, 35-RD"-64, and
35-RD-65. October 27,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Robert Volger, 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 these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the
Unions, which have been separately certified as bargaining repre-
sentatives of employees in the respective units hereinafter found
appropriate, are no longer representatives as defined in Section 9 (a)
of the Act of such employees.
The Unions moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the
Petitioners have not complied with the filing requirements of Section
9 (h) of the Act. The Unions contend that the Petitioners are subject
to these requirements because they are engaged in group activities
and joint action.
The record shows that the Petitioners consulted informally among
themselves and with other employees concerning the circulation of
petitions seeking to enlist employee support for the filing of formal
decertification petitions; that with the cooperation of other employees
these petitions were actually circulated among employees; and that
a sufficient number of signatures was obtained to support the repre-
sentation petitions filed with the Board.
It is clear that these group activities had as their only purpose the
initiation of Board proceedings for the decertification of the lncuni-
I The name of the Ei ployei appears as corrected at the heaiina
11-1 _d 1. 1,1::N o. 1 -, G
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bent Unions as bargaining representatives, as provided for in Section
9 (c) (1) (ii) of the Act. There is no evidence, in fact there is no
allegation by the Unions, that the amorphous employee groups led
by the Petitioners were formed or 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." Accordingly, we find that the employee groups here involved
ire not "labor organizations" within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.2
It is well established that the provisions relating to compliance
under Section 9 (h) 3 are applicable only to "labor organizations"
within the meaning of the Act 4 Individuals, even when actifig in
"behalf of groups of employees, do not come within the purview of Sec-
tion 9 (h),5 provided that they are not "fronting" for a noncomplying
labor organization.6 There is neither contention nor evidence of such
-fronting in these cases. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioners
were not required to comply with the filing requirements of Section
9 (h) of the Act. We therefore deny the Unions' motions to dismiss
the petitions.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties entered into at
the hearing, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
a. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Richmond, Indiana, Machining Plant 5, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, cafeteria employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
b. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Richmond, Indiana, Sleeve Casting Plant 6, including group leaders
and the shipping and receiving clerk, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, plant clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
2 The Cleveland Ti ast Company, 102 NLRB 1497, 1501
3 Section 9 (h) reads as follows
No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting commerce
concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under
subsection (c) of this section, . unless there is on file with the Board an affi-
davit . by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national
or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that
lie is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, . . . (Em-
phasis supplied 1
4 Acme Boot Man, ufact a ring Company, Inc., 76 NLRB 441, 442.
Standard Orl Company (Indiana), 80 NLRB 1022, 1023.
9 World Publishing Company, 109 NLRB 355; N. L. R B. v. Alaide, Inc., 192 F. 2d 678
.(C. A. 6).
E. F. SHUCK CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. 727
c. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Hagerstown, Indiana, plant, excluding office clerical employees, plant
clerical employees, employees of engineering or administrative de-
partments, cafeteria employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.7
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
Tin aUOrdan(e with a stipulation of the paities, we exclude from the unit students
empioV ed as pai t-tune employ ces
E. F. Shuck Construction Co. Inc. and The Associated General
Contractors of America, Seattle Chapter, Inc. and The Seattle
Construction Council and Hod Carriers , Building and Com-
mon Laborers Union , Local No. 242 , AFL and Richard B. Kie-
burtz. Cases No.s. 19-CA-S51 and 19-CB-261. October 28, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondents, The Associated General
Contractors of America, Seattle Chapter, Inc., and The Seattle Con-
struction Council, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief. On February 9, 1955, the Board ordered that the
record in the proceeding be reopened, that a further hearing be held
before a Trial Examiner for the purpose of obtaining additional com-
merce data, and that "the Trial Examiner shall prepare and serve upon
the parties a Supplemental Intermediate Report containing findings of
fact upon the evidence pursuant to the provisions of this order." On
April 14, 1955, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Supple-
mental Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings setting
forth his findings of fact pursuant to the provisions of the Order of the
Board issued February 9, 1955. Thereafter, Respondents, The As-
sociated General Contractors of America, Seattle Chapter, Inc., and
The Seattle Construction Council, filed exceptions to the Supple-
mental Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiners made
at the initial hearing and the supplemental hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
114 NLRB No. 116.