Pyrene Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1542 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of PYRENE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE
WORKERS, LOCAL 444, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC-18415.Decided May 23, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hearing
officer. The hearing 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Styles].
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
The Intervenor (U. E. Local 444) contends that its collective bar-
gaining contract entered into with the Employer on October 15, 1948,
to remain in effect until October 15, 1950, and containing a 60-day
automatic renewal clause, is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner
(I. U. E., Local 444, CIO) contends that the contract is not a bar
because the facts disclose a schism in the contracting union, and that
i The motion of the United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America , Local 444,
the Intervenor herein , to dismiss the petition upon the ground of a contract bar is denied
for reasons hereinafter stated.
The Intervenor 's request that it be furnished with a copy of the hearing officer's report
is hereby denied. See Radio Corporation of America ( Victor Division ), 89 NLRB No. 107.
The Intervenor , in its brief, objects to the manner in which the hearing was conducted.
We find no merit in this objection. Cf. Angelus Chevrolet Co., 88 NLRB No. 174.
89 NLRB No. 208.
1542
IPYRENE MANUFAC'T'URING COMPANY 1543
under established Board practice an immediate election should be
held.
On November 4, 1949, Local 444, U. E. held a regular membership
meeting. Notice of this meeting was posted throughout the plant on
the Employer's eight bulletin boards. The purpose of meeting was
to,consider^ and decide the disaffiliation by the Local from the U. E.,
and its affiliation with the I. U. E. (CIO). More than a quorum
were present at the meeting. It was unanimously resolved that the
said Local 444 disaffiliate from the U. E. and affiliate with I. U. E.
(CIO). On November 9, 1949, the I. U. E. (CIO) issued a charter
to the Petitioner herein (Local 444, I. U. E. CIO). All the members
including officers transferred their allegiance to the new Local 444
I. U. E., CIO', and the officers are serving in their same capacities in
the new local. The contract has been administered by Local' 444, I.
U. E., CIO. Since the disaffiliation no other labor organization has
made demands on the Employer concerning .the representation of the
employees. in the contract unit. However, the Employer refuses "for-
mally to recognize the Petitioner until it is certified by the Board.
The above facts reveal a schism analogous to that presented in
Boston Machine Works Company,2 and for the reasons stated in that
decision, we find that no bar exists to a present determination of rep-
resentatives.
4. In accordance with the agreement of the Petitioner and the
Employer '3 we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production workers, maintenance workers, shop clerks, porters,
cleaners, cafeteria workers, and watchmen 4 in the employment of the
Employer at its plants located at 560 Belmont Avenue and 10 Empire
Street, Newark 8, New Jersey, but excluding office help, truck drivers,
technical chemists, engineers, draftsmen, Robert Satriano, employees
engaged in controlling visitors, guards, foremen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 6
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
2 89 NLRB 59.
3 The Intervenor takes no position with respect to the unit. The unit agreed upon is
substantially that set forth in the current contract.
4 The parties agree, and the record discloses, that the duties of the watchmen are non-
monitorial in character.
L As the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 444, has never
effected compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, we shall omit its name
from the ballot.
1544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this
case was heard, and subject to Section 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees
in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during, the payroll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did
not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on va-
cation or temporarily laid off,6 but excluding those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been re-
hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding
employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, Local 444, CIO.
9 The Intervenor herein seeks an eligibility date at variance with our usual one in order
that some employees classified as temporarily laid off be included in the voting group. The
Petitioner opposed this motion and the Employer stated that its employment trend had
been steadily downward and the chance of the reemployment of these persons was very
slight although at the time of the hearing it could make no definite statement on the
matter. Under these circumstances we cannot make a final determination on the matter
but shall adhere to our usual eligibility date and the rules thereunder governing eligibility.