Pullman, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 3, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 954 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trailmobile, Division of Pullman , Inc. and Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), Petitioner. Case 4-RC-1 1495
December 3, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On June 18, 1975, , the Regional Director for
Region 4 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he concluded that an immediate election was
inappropriate but directed that an election be held at
such time as the Employer's facility resumes opera-
tion with a substantial and representative comple-
ment of employees. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Employer and the Intervenor, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and
Local Lodge No. 347, filed timely requests for review
in which they contended, inter alia, that in failing to
dismiss the petition and instead directing an election
at a later time to be determined by him, the Regional
Director departed from precedent.'
On August 26, 1975, the National Labor Relations
Board by telegraphic order granted the requests-for
review and stayed the election pending decision on
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review, and
hereby makes the following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of
highway truck trailers and containers at its West
Point, Pennsylvania, plant. During November and
December of 1974, a period of full production, the
Employer produced approximately 30-33 trailers or
containers per-day with a work force of approximate-
ly 130 salaried and managerial personnel and
approximately 550 hourly paid production and
maintenance employees. Subsequently, the Employer
experienced cutbacks in orders for its trailers and
containers attributable in part to the economic
recession and in part to a new Department of
Transportation safety regulation. This regulation
required the inclusion of certain safety devices on all
trailers manufactured after July 1, 1975, thereby
increasing the cost of manufacture. As 'a conse-
quence, customers needing new trailers had made
their purchase in 1974 instead of 1975 to avoid
paying the higher prices for the newer models. At the
time of the hearing on April 8, 1975, the Employer
had reduced Its work force drastically to 24 pro-
duction and maintenance employees and 18-24
salaried employees, and it expected to lay off 4-5
more employees in the immediate future. Operations
at that time were confined to production of parts.2
The Employer testified that based upon its "closest
and best economic judgment," during the second
half of 1975 it expected a pickup in business
sufficient for it to' recall the laid-off employees, but
was unable to' specify a date for the planned recall.
Further, the Employer stated that before it will recall
the laid-off employees and resume full scale opera-
tions, it must have a 30-60 day backlog of orders. At
the time of the hearing Employer had no, backlog of
orders, but was in'the process of making quotes for a
potential contract which would produce a 10-a-day
run.
There is no dispute as to the Regional Director's
finding that the Employer's work force, at the time of
the hearing, was not a substantial and representative
complement. Normally, absent special circum-
stances, where it is found that a requested unit
complement is expanding to such an extent that it is
not substantial and representative in relation to that
projected in the reasonably foreseeable future, the
Board dismisses the petition without prejudice to the
filing of a new petition when the unit complement
becomes representative and substantial.3 We find no
special circumstances present herein to warrant a
departure from this policy.4 Accordingly, we shall
I The Intervenor's request for oral argument, joined in by the Employer,
is denied , as the record, including the requests for review, adequately
presents the issues and the positions of the parties
2 The contract between Employer and the Intervenor provides that
employees with less than 6 months' seniority have recall rights for 6 months
and employees with more seniority have recall rights for a year. In spite of
the Employer's testimony that it might recall employees even if they had lost
their recall rights due to the length of the layoff, the Regional Director
found that he was unable to determine how many of the laid-off employees
had a reasonable expectancy of recall
3 K-P Hydraulics Company, 219 NLRB No 20 (1975) The cases cited by
221 NLRB No. 167
the Regional Director, Waite Carpet Company, 85 NLRB 1130 (1949), and
Precision Manufacturing Co, 88 NLRB 509 (1950), are distinquishable, in
that they directed elections in the "fall" and in "April," respectively, and
thus did not leave open the possibility of an indefinite pendency of the
petitions
9 Illustrative of the type of situation in which it is appropriate to direct
an election at a fu'ure time to be determined by the Regional Director is
where the employer's operations are seasonal in nature and where it is clear
from the record that the unit complement will become representative and
substantial in the very near future.
TRAILMOBILE, DIVISION OF PULLMAN, INC. 955
dismiss the instant petition and require the filing of a ORDER
new petition at a time when a representative and
substantial complement of production and mainte- It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
nance employees is working at the plant involved . it hereby is, dismissed.