Personal Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1129 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1129
question , indicating their desire to be included in a unit with
the nonprofessional employees , they will be included in such
unit, which , in that event , we find to be appropriate . Their votes
on the second question will then be counted together with the
votes of the nonprofessional voting group ( a) to decide the
question of representation for the whole unit . If, on the other
hand, a majority of the professional employees in voting
group ( b) vote against inclusion , we find separate units of
professional employees , and nonprofessional employees to be
appropriate . The votes of each voting group will then be sep-
arately counted to decide whether or not that group desires
to be represented by Petitioner.
5. Eligibility of part-time employees and relief employees
to vote.
As the record indicates that the only difference between the
working conditions of the regular part-time employees and the
full -time employees is the number of hours they are regularly
scheduled to work , we find that they are all eligible to vote
irrespective of the number of hours they are scheduled to
work.4 The relief employees comprise a pool of approved em-
ployees who may be called by the store manager upon authori-
zation of the central office , to replace sick employees or
employees absent for other reasons . These employees are not
required to accept employment when offeredin order to remain
on the approved list . The Employer indicated that some of
these employees work quite often whereas others work only
infrequently , and suggested that those relief employees who
have worked on 4 or more days during the month preceding the
notice of election be permitted to vote . The Petitioner contends
that none of the relief employees should be permitted to vote.
We do not believe the record contains sufficient information for
an intelligent resolution of this issue , and shall permit the
relief employees to vote subject to challenge by either party.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
4Crosley Broadcasting of Atlanta, Inc., 107 NLRB 13; Silver Knit Hosiery Mills , Inc., 99
NLRB 422.
PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION and TEXTILE WORK-
ERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-
RC-3761. May 27, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles
Y. Latimer, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings
108 NLRB No. 161.
1 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 cer-
tain employees of the Employer. t
3. A question affecting commerce exists 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. The following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the
Employer at its Chicago, Illinois, plant, excluding office
clerical employees , professional employees , guards , laboratory
inspectors and technicians , cafeteria employees , and super-
visors as defined in the Act.'
5. The determination of representatives:
The Employer and the Intervenor, herein referred to as AFL,
contend that, because of the pendency of certain unfair labor
practice charges filed by the Employer against the Petitioner,
herein referred to as CIO, the Board should not direct an
immediate election in this proceeding.
The record discloses the following:
On February 12, 1951, the CIO was certified as collective-
bargaining representative for the Employer ' s employees. A
contract entered into at that time between the CIO and the
Employer expired on October 15, 1952. Following the filing
of unfair labor practice charges by the Employer against the
CIO,9 a complaint was issued on June 5, 1953, alleging 8 (b)
(1) (A) and 8 (b) (3) violations. Subsequently, on July 7, 1953,
as amended on September 2 and December 1, 1953, the CIO
filed unfair labor practice charges against the Employer,4
alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1), (3 ), and (5 ) of the Act.
Again on January 11, 1954, the Employer filed new unfair
labor practice charges against the CIO, 5 alleging 8 (b) (1)
(A) and 8 (b) (3) violations of the Act. Finally, on January
21, 1954 , the same date the instant petition was filed, the
Employer recognized the AFL, and subsequently entered into
a collective -bargaining agreement with the latter union
The alleged 8 (a) (1) and (3) charges in the CA case have
since been waived, and the 8 ( a) (5) charge withdrawn, by the
CIO. Recently the Board rendered its decision in the earlier
'United Textile Workers of America,, AFL, was permitted to intervene at the hearing
based upon its showing of interest.
2 The unit appears as stipulated to by the parties at the hearmg.
913-CB-229.
413-CA-1508.
513-CB-281.
6 The contract, however, is not raised as a bar.
KOEHRING SOUTHERN COMPANY 11 31
CB case,' finding that the CIO had committed certain unfair
labor practices and ordering that it cease and desist therefrom.
On the basis of the particular facts in this case, we feel
that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act and promote
the orderly processes of collective bargaining to direct an
election. We have been advised by the General Counsel that
the new CB charges8 have been settled, and therefore it
appears that they will not be a bar to an election. In that
event, compliance with the Board's order in 13-CB-229,'
will warrant proceeding with the instant representation pe-
tition. Accordingly, we make the direction of election herein
contingent upon the CIO's compliance with the Board's order
in 13-CB-229, and hereby direct the Regional Director to
conduct said election at a time when he has determined that
such compliance by the CIO has been effected and that no
intervening unfair labor practices make a free election
impossible.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 Textile Workers Union of America, CIO (Personal Products Corporation), 108 NLRB
743.
813-CB-281.
9 Textile Workers Union of America, CIO (Personal Products Corporation), supra.
KOEHRING SOUTHERN COMPANY and OFFICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 179, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 10-RC-2667. May 27, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David L.
Trezise, 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 organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists 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. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of the Employer's "clerical
employees and employees in closely related positions, excluding
all employees covered by the current agreement between
the Employer and Local 919, United Auto Workers of America,
AFL, private secretaries , plant nurse, time study men, tool
108 NLRB No. 141.