Randolph Metal Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 973 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

RANDOLPH METAL WORKS, INC. 973
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of See-
tion9(b) of the Act:
All selling and nonselling employees at the Jamaica, New York,
store of the Employer, including sales personnel in the three owned
and three leased departments, but excluding shoppers, professional
employees, guards, watchmen, confidential employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Randolph Metal Works, Inc. and Local Union 1841 , International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos.. -RC-5587 and 4-RC-5609. June 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Katherine W.
Tereshinski. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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 :
Randolph Metal Works, Inc., the Employer herein, is a Pennsylvania
corporation engaged in the manufacture of lamps . On September 27,
1962, pursuant to a petition filed by Local Union 1841, IBEW, AFL-
CIO, the Petitioner herein, an election was held among the production
and maintenance employees of the Employer. Petitioner lost the
election and no union was certified as representative of the employees
involved. On June 21, 1963, the Employer recognized the Building
Service Employees International Union, Local 252 , AFL-CIO, the
Intervenor herein, as representative of its production and maintenance
employees on the basis of a card showing.. Thereafter, the Employer
and Intervenor entered into a collective -bargaining agreement , cover-
ing these employees, effective from July 2, 1963, until June 30, 1966.
L Building Service Employees International Union , Local 252, AFL-CIO , herein called
Intervenor , was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest in the
employees involved.
147 NLRB No. 150.
974 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This contract contained a union-security clause, the validity of which
is questioned by the Petitioner. On July 25, 1963, Petitioner filed a
petition (Case No. 4-RC-5587) seeking to represent these employees.
On August 1 the Employer and Intervenor executed an amendment
to their agreement, substituting a new and clearly valid union-security
provision for the one originally in the contract.
On August 5 Petitioner sent a letter to the Regional Director stating
that it had been given reason to believe that its petition filed on July 25
was untimely,2 and requesting that the Regional Director allow it to
withdraw the petition and file a new petition as of August 5. The
Regional Director granted Petitioner's request (Case No. 4-RC-5609).
Thereafter, on December 27, Petitioner wrote to the Regional Director,
requesting that it be permitted to reinstate its original petition of
July 25. On January 17, 1964, the Regional Director granted the re-
quest, consolidated the two proceedings, and directed a hearing which
was subsequently held on January 28, 1964. The Employer's request
for review of the Regional Director's decision reinstating the original
petition was denied by the Board, "without prejudice," on January 28.
The Employer and Intervenor contend that both the July 25 and
August 5 petitions should be dismissed as untimely. More specifically,
they take the position that the second petition, filed on August 5, was
barred by the contract between the Employer and Intervenor, as
amended on August 1, and that since the original petition was filed
more than 60 days prior to the anniversary date of the election, it
was untimely under the Vickers rule.' The Employer and Intervenor
also contend that the Regional Director acted improperly in reinstat-
ing the July 25 petition.
We agree that both petitions should be dismissed for the following
reasons : Inasmuch as the July 25 petition was filed more than 60
days before the anniversary date of the election, it was untimely under
the rule in the Vickers case.' We shall, accordingly, dismiss the peti-
tion in Case No. 4-RC-5587.5 With respect to the August 5 petition,
2 At the hearing Petitioner 's representative testified that Petitioner had requested the
withdrawal of the petition on being advised by a Board field attorney that the petition was
premature because it had been filed more than 60 days before the end of the year follow-
ing the election held among the employees in the same unit as is sought in the petition.
3 Vickers , Incorporated, 124 NLRB 1051.
4In Vickers , the Board held that a petition filed more than 60 days prior to the anni-
versary date of a valid election held in the same unit in which no union was selected must
be dismissed forthwith . We find no merit in Petitioner ' s contention that the rule in
Ludlow Typo graph Company, 108 NLRB 1463, should be applied here and the timeliness
of the July 25 petition should be determined by the Board's contract -bar rules. Ludlow,
in our view, is distinguishable since, unlike the instant case, it involved the certification-
year bar rather than the election-year bar of Vickers.
5 We likewise find no merit in the Petitioner 's contention that even if the Board finds
that the July 25 petition was untimely under Vickers, the Board should nevertheless
direct an election on the basis of such petition , in accord with its decision in Mason &
Hanger-Silas Mason Company ; 142 NLRB 699 . We find Silas Mason factually distinguish-
INDUSTRIAL SIDERURGICA, INC. 975
although it was filed within the 60-day period, it was filed after the
execution of the amended contract, which has a lawful union-security
clause. We shall accordingly dismiss the petition in Case No. 4-
RC-5609.
Accordingly, as we have found that no question concerning repre-
sentation exists, we shall dismiss the petitions herein e
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
MEMBERS LEEDOM and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
able. There, unlike here, no contract had been entered into by the parties during the
election year. In this context, the Board directed an election on the basis of the petition,
stating: "To dismiss the petition at this time would subject the Board to an immediate
repetition of the proceeding as a new petition could be timely filed as soon as a decision
in this case issues." Here, however, the contract between the Employer and Intervenor
was amended on August 1, and the amended contract would have been a bar to any sub-
sequently filed petitions. Therefore, unlike Silas Mason, in the present case, a dismissal of
the July 25 petition would not subject the Board to an "immediate repetition of the
proceedings."
In view of our finding that, in any event, the July 25 petition was untimely and should
have been dismissed , we find it unnecessary to decide whether the Regional Director had
authority to reinstate the July 25 petition.
6 As we are dismissing the petitions herein, we need not reach the other issues raised
by the parties in this proceeding.
Industrial Siderurgica , Inc. and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO ( Union de Trabajadores de Metal ). Case No. 94-RC-
1432. June 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND CERTIFICATION
On August 8, 1960, following an election conducted pursuant to a
Decision and Direction of Election issued July 6, 1960,' United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO (Union de Trabajjadores de Metal),
herein called the Petitioner, was certified as the collective-bargaining
representative, with certain exclusions not material, for "all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's steel mill and scrap
yard in Palmas Ward, Catano, Puerto Rico."
On May 31, 1963, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the certified
unit to include, as an accretion to the bargaining unit, production and
maintenance employees employed by the Puerto Steel Company, herein
called PR, in its steel fabricating plant adjoining the bar production
plant of the Employer at Catano, Puerto Rico. Contrary to the
Petitioner, the Employer contends that the PR operation is not an
accretion to the existing unit and that the proper procedure for com-
bining the two groups of employees would be by petition and election.
1 Not published in printed volumes of NLRB decisions.
147 NLRB No. 119.