Saginaw Hardware Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

SAGINAW HARDWARE COMPANY 955
under him, but also uses independent judgment in exercising
such authority. Moreover, Weller has the authority effectively
to recommend the change of status of his crewmen . Accordingly,
we find that Weller is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act, 2 and we hereby sustain the Employer 's challenge to his
ballot.
As the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the valid
ballots cast in the election, we shall certify the results of the
election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive
representative of the employees of the Employer in the appro-
priate unit.]
2 See Jackson Electric Membership Corporation, 106 NLRB 1019.
SAGINAW HARDWARE COMPANY and LEO A. PIETRZAK,
Petitioner and LOCAL NO. 10, OFFICE EMPLOYEES IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION, AFL
SAGINAW HARDWARE COMPANY and MAXINE OSTERBECK,
GWENN RUPP, FLORENCE SCHULER, Petitioners and
LOCAL NO. 10, OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL. Cases Nos . 7-RD-166 and 7-RD-169. May 21,
1954
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Robert Pisarski , hearing officer. At the hearing , the Union
moved to dismiss the petitions on several grounds . For reasons
stated infra , the motions are hereby denied . The hearing of-
ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. Petitioners, employees of the Employer, have filed peti-
tions asserting that the Union , currently recognized by the Em-
ployer as the bargaining representative , is no longer a repre-
sentative , as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the em-
ployees involved in this matter.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
108 NLRB No. 131.
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union moved to dismiss the petition in Case No. 7-RD-
166, contending that it had been withdrawn . The Union also
moved to dismiss the petitions in both cases , Nos. 7-RD-166
and 7-RD-169 , on the ground that an existing collective-bar-
gaining contract is a bar to a present determination of repre-
sentatives.
On March 1 , 1953, the Union and the Employer entered into a
collective -bargaining contract covering office employees, ef-
fective from March 1, 1953 , to March 1 , 1954, and renewable
automatically for annual periods thereafter , unless either
party gave written notice to terminate 60 days before any
anniversary date . Neither contracting party gave such notice
before March 1, 1954.
In a letter dated December 23, 1953, 11 of the Employer's 1Z
office employees informed the Union thay they desired to end
their affiliation on the expiration of the current labor agree-
ment. The same group also sent a letter to the Board ' s Regional
Office requesting advice as to the procedure for decertifying
the Union . The employees sent copies of both letters to the
Employer . The Employer received the letters on December 28,
1953, before the automatic renewal date of the contract: A for-
mal decertification petition signed by Leo A. Pietrzak was
then filed with the Board's Regional Office on December 31,
1953 . This is the petition in Case No . 7-RD-166. Shortly
thereafter , on January 6, 1954, the Regional Director issued a
notice of hearing, scheduling a hearing for January 18, 1954.
On January 9, 1954 , before the scheduled hearing, Petitioner
Pietrzak sent a telegram and alettertothe Regional Office re-
questing it to "cancel " the petition in Case No . 7-RD-166. On
January 12 Pietrzak signed a formal withdrawal request. The
Regional Director approved the withdrawal request on January
13, and notified Pietrzak by letter that the petition had been
withdrawn without prejudice and the notice of hearing canceled.
The 11 employees , who had writen the original letter to the
Regional Office on December 23 , 1953, again wrote to the
Regional Office on January 15 , 1954 , explaining that Pietrzak
had acted on their behalf in signing the petition but that he had
withdrawn the petition "without our knowledge or consent," and
that they " would like to continue with our petition , as we would
still like to be decertified from Local No. 10 ." On advice of the
Regional Director , a committee of three signed a new petition.
This is the petition in Case No . 7-RD-169, filed January 20,
i954.
On January 19, 1954 , the Regional Director issued and served
on all parties an order to show cause why approval of Pietrzak's
withdrawal request should not be rescinded. After Pietrzak's
answer was received , the Regional Director , on January 27,
1954 , issued an order rescinding his approval of the withdrawal
request and referring such request to the Board . The order
stated that Pietrzak ' s answer to the show cause order "dis-
SAGINAW HARDWARE COMPANY 957
closes a conflict of testimony with regard to Pietrzak' s author-
ity to withdraw the petition in Case No . 7-RD-166, which, if
known to the undersigned [Regional Director] on January 13,
1954, would have caused him to withhold approval of said with-
drawal."
The principal issue is whether Petitioner Pietrzak requested
withdrawal of the petition with the knowledge and consent of the
office employees for whom he was acting . Petitioner Pietrzak
and the Union claim that the action was taken with the approval
of a majority of the employees . The office employees dispute
this claim.
There are 12 office employees . Of the 12, 11 employees
signed the original letters to the Union, the Board , and the
Employer, expressing their desire to decertify the Union. The
12th employee, Pietrzak, signed the petition in Case No. 7 -RD-
166. Pietrzak, who was the union shop steward, testified that
after filing the petition , he decided it was best to withdraw,
informed the employees of his intention , and none disapproved
his proposal . Nine of the employees , in addition to Pietrzak,
testified at the hearing . The testimony of the nine is in sub-
stantial agreement that Pietrzak had not consulted with them
as to whether he should withdraw the petition , and that none
had ever told him to do so or had consented to his action. As
soon as the employees were informed of Pietrzak ' s with-
drawal action , they took immediate steps to reinstate the
decertification petition.
On the basis of the record considered as a whole, we find
that Pietrzak was not authorized by the employees for whom he
acted as agent to request withdrawal of the petition in Case No.
7-RD-166. Accordingly, Pietrzak' s request to withdraw such
petition is hereby denied.
As the employees made a timely request for withdrawal of
recognition from the Union and followed such request with the
filing of a petition within 10 days thereafter ,' we find that the
existing contract is not a bar to a present determination of
representatives.
In view of our denial of the withdrawal request in Case No.
7-RD-166, we shall dismiss the petition in Case No. 7-RD-169
as redundant.
4. The petition seeks an election in a unit of the Employer's
office employees , as described in the Union's contract. The
Employer is in agreement with the unit description . The Union
declined to state its position on the unit . We find that the
following employees at the Employer' s Saginaw , Michigan,
plant, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All office employees including office clerk, billing clerks I
and II, switchboard operator , assistant bookkeepers, typist
'General Electric X-Ray Corp ., 67 NLRB 997 ; Kennedy Broadcasting Co., 96 NLRB 354.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shipping, typist office, stenographer, and pricers No. 1 and No.
2, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 7-RD-169.]
[Text of Direction of Election= omitted from publication.]
=International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local Union No. 486, AFL, intervened only to protect its contract interest. The
Teamsters' contract does not cover any of the employees here involved. We shall, therefore,
not place the Teamsters' name on the ballot.
FAIRBANKS TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. and TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION,
LOCAL NO. 183, AFL. Case No. 19-CA-777. May 24, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 14, 1953, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller
issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
At the outset of the hearing the Respondent moved for a con-
tinuance of the hearing, on the ground that it had not yet been
served with a written bill of particulars onthe complaint which
the Trial Examiner had ordered prior to the hearing, and
therefore had not been given a proper opportunity under the
Board's Rules to file an answer to the complaint. The bill
of particulars was then introduced in evidence. The Trial
Examiner then denied the motion for a continuance, subject
to the Respondent's right to plead suprise and renew its
motion in the light of the General Counsel's proof. The Trial
Examiner then invited and accepted an oral answer, and sub-
sequently during the General Counsel's proof a written answer
was offered by the Respondent and received. The Respondent
did not renew its motion for a continuance of the hearing.
108 NLRB No. 135.