Pointer Willamette Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 673 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

POINTER WILLAMETTE COMPANY, INC. 673
as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this,
volume.]
POINTER WILLAMETTE COMPANY, INC., and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, LOCALS 104 AND 541, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC--
497. March 6, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition 1 duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National,
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hubert J. Merrick,,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Murdock].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. The Machinists contends that a contract executed on December
6, 1949, to expire on April 1, 1951, is a bar to this proceeding. A prior
contract in effect between the Machinists and the Employer was nego-
tiated on April 1, 1948, and was to run from year to year thereafter-
unless reopened by written notice. This contract was not reopened
before April 1, 1949, and thereafter was automatically renewed for
another year. Subsequently, in December 1949, the parties began
negotiations for a new agreement. Thereafter, on December 6, 1949,
'The original petition in this case was filed January 30, 1950 , and disposition thereof
was withheld pending disposal of the charges in Case No 19-CA-309. Since that time
Case No 19-CA-309 has been settled and is now closed
2 At the hearing Distilet Lodge No 69 , International Association of Machinists, here-
inafter called the Machinists , and Local 302, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL, hereinafter called the Operating Engineers , were permitted to intervene on the basis
of their alleged contractual interests in this proceeding However , the Operating Engineers
did not seek to participate in any election the Boaid may direct . The hearing officer
refereed to the Board for iuling the Machinists ' motion to dismiss the petition on the
grounds that a contract between it and the Employer is a bar to this pr ceeding . For the
reasons hereinafter stilted, such motion is denied.
93 NLRB No. 93.
943732-51-44
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the parties executed a new contract effective January 1, 1950. The
effect of this contract was to extend the term of the then current
contract until April 1, 1951. It is this last contract that the Machin-
ists contends is a bar to the proceeding. We find no merit in this
contention. Under the settled rule, a contract which is a premature
-extension of an existing contract cannot operate as a bar to a petition
timely filed with regard to the expiration date of the original contract.3
We find that 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 Petitioner seeks in effect to sever a craft unit of boilermakers
,and helpers,4 excluding all other production and maintenance em-
ployees,5 clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. In the alternative, the Petitioner
would accept the over-all production and maintenance unit which the
Machinists claims to represent. The Employer and the Machinists
assert that the unit now in existence, comprising all production and
maintenance employees with the exception of the crane operators
is the only appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
Since about 1944 all the employees in the Employer's operation
have been represented by the Machinists in an over-all unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees. At the time of the hearing
the Employer was engaged in the construction of steel barges. The
proposed unit contains approximately 24 employees, all 'classified as
journeymen, of whom 8 perform burning work, 8 perform welding
work, and 8 perform shipfitting work. All the employees sought by
the Petitioner have skills and perform work within the traditional
craft of boilermakers, a recognized craft group, which may constitute
a separate appropriate unit.' On the other hand, such a unit in
effect constitutes practically all of the employees in the over-all it
which the Petitioner has expressed, alternatively, its willingness to
represent, and in which the Petitioner has a substantial showing of
interest. Although we would normally grant the separate unit re-
^quest of the Petitioner, we believe the foregoing circumstances warrant
3 Gimbel Brothers , Inc, 87 NLRB 449; Republic Steel Corporation , 84 NLRB 483
4 The employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent perform the following work:
The laying out and marking off of structural steel and steel plate , shearing , punching,
welding, burning, bending, shaping, fitting, drilling, riveting, rivet bearing, rigging, holding
on, chipping , caulking , belting , and testing performed in the fabrication assembling , erect-
ing, installation , steel maintenance and repair of steel barges , steel tanks, and all other
steel plate and structural steel fabrications.
5 Excluded in this category are the following employees • One truck driver, one painter,
one carpenter , one stockroom man, one draftsman , and one crane operator
e Neither the Petitioner, the Employer, nor the Machinists would include within the
bargaining unit the crane operator now represented by the Operating Engineers , as that
employee is presently covered by a contract between the Operating Engineers and the
Employer
Gibbs Corporation, 81 NLRB 1029; Waterman Steamship Corporation , Repair Division,
78 NLRB 20.
BREWSTER MOTORS, INC. 675
the conclusion, in this instance, that only the over-all production
and maintenance unit is appropriate.
Accordingly, we -find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Edmonds, Washington, plant, excluding
the crane operator, office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors within the meaning of 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 in this
volume.]
BREWSTER MOTORS, INC. and EDWARD E. KARR, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A
KARR MOTOR COMPANY ' and Roy OWENS, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A
OWENS & GILL MOTOR Co.' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 14-RC-1P24, 14-RC-1225,
and 14-RC-1230. March, 5, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon consolidated petitions duly filed, a hearing was held on De-
cember 19, 1950, before Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer. The hear-
ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. All three of the Employers conduct similar operations. They
are engaged in the sale of new and used automobiles, and in the repair
of automotive equipment, at Herrin, Illinois. Each contends that
its business, viewed separately, does not affect interstate commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
Each Employer holds, for that city and its environs, an exclusive
franchise from a multistate automobile manufacturer (Brewster
Motors. Inc., with Ford Motor Company; Karr Motor Company with
Chrysler Motor Company; and Owens & Gill Motor Co. with Nash
Motor Company). During the year 1949, each Employer purchased
automobiles and automotive equipment valued in excess of $143,000,
all of which was received from points outside the State of Illinois.
' The names of the Employers appear as amended at the hearing.
93 NLRB No. 95.