Personal Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 563 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 563
and the chemical production departments, the biologic testing and
the quality control testing departments, the shipping and ware-
housing employees, the employees in the veterinary pathology, the
organic chemistry, the biochemistry, the helminthology, the micro-
biology, and the protozoology departments,5 but excluding all office
clerical employees, technical employees, agricultural laborers, pro-
fessional employees,6 watchmen, guards, and all supervisors7 as de-
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 The parties agreed that the laboratory assistants should be excluded.
6 The parties stipulated that all veterinarians, chemists, bacteriologists, helmintholo-
gists, protozoologists , parasitologists , biochemists , and chemical engineers are professional
employees.
7 The parties agreed that Stanley O 'Doud, a laboratory assistant , and Gallus Heit are
supervisors.
Personal Products Corporation and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-5738. Decem-
ber 18, 1958
ORDER PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION
WITH PREJUDICE
On April 16, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in this case, and by letter dated November 4, 1958, the
Petitioner requested leave to withdraw its petition with prejudice.
The request to withdraw does not state a reason, but the Board
assumes that the request is pursuant to an order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, affirmed by the
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (42 LRRM 2605). The
Board was not a party to the litigation, which was initiated by
the Intervenor in this case. The Board has determined to grant
the request to withdraw the petition in this proceeding but desires
to make it clear that in permitting withdrawal, the Board does not
acquiesce in the decision of the United States District Court or the
Court of Appeals. In future litigation of this character where a
party to a National Labor Relations Board proceeding seeks to
restrain another party from appearing on a ballot as directed by
the Board, the Board will expect to be made a party to the court
litigation. Moreover, if the Board is not made a party to any such
litigation and if the litigation results in a petition being directed
by a court to withdraw a petition, the Board will be disposed to
deny withdrawal of the petition.'
i Members Bean and Fanning would permit withdrawal without comment.
122 NLRB No. 84.
564 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's request to withdraw
the petition be, and it hereby is, granted with prejudice to its filing
a new petition for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order,
unless good cause is shown why the Board should entertain a new
petition filed prior to the expiration of such period.
Local Union No . 450, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO, and W. S. Chennault, business representative
[Tellepsen Construction Company ] and J. R. Rittenberry,
Charging Party. Case No. 39-CB-120. December 19, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 19, 1956, Trial Examiner Harry S. Sahm issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re-
spondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup-
porting brief.'
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
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
is the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions, modifica-
tions, and additions noted below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents, in
violation of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act, caused the Company dis-
criminatorily to deny employee Rittenberry a promotion to master
mechanic because he was not a member in its organization for 3 years.
As shown in the Intermediate Report and the record , the Re-
spondent Union and the Company were parties to a contract which
required that the master mechanic be a "practical mechanic of the
craft ... and have three ( 3) years or more of experience at .. .
[his] trade." In April 1955, Farmer, the Company's superintendent,
told employee Rittenberry that he might surprise him and make
him a master mechanic. Rittenberry, who had joined the Respondent
Union 2 years earlier, had experience in the trade dating back to
'As the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties, the Respondents' request for oral argument is denied.
2 Because of their disagreement with the Trial Examiner 's findings and recommenda-
tions, the Respondents charge the Trial Examiner with bias and prejudice . We find no
evidence in the record of bias or prejudice or merit in this contention.
122 NLRB No. 78.