Savage Arms Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1366 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SAVAGE ARMS CORPORATION , EMPLOYEmi and TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LocAL 182, AFL, PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 3-RC-407.Deeided May 17,1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William J.
Cavers, hearing officer. The, hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations 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
t (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to sever from an established plant-wide unit
at the Employer's Utica, New York, plant a unit consisting of the one
full-time truck driver employed at the plant 2 It urges that the
Board's well-established principle that one-man units are inappro-
priate for collective bargaining purposes be revised. However, the
Petitioner has not advanced any reasons to support its position regard-
i Savage Employees Protective Association was permitted to intervene upon the basis of
a contractual interest.
2 Although the petition requests a unit of truck drivers , we find, in accordance with the
Petitioner 's admission at the hearing , that there is only one employee in this category.
89. NLRB No. 179.
1366
SAVAGE ARMS CORPORATION 1367
ing the appropriateness of a one-man unit which have not heretofore
been considered and rejected by us. We find, therefore, in accordance
with established precedent, that where only one employee is involved
the proposed bargaining unit is inappropriate 3 Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition .4
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in the above-entitled case be,
and the same hereby is, dismissed.
8 Griffin Wheel Company, 80 NLRB 1471, and cases cited therein.
Under the circumstances, we find it unnecessary to consider the contract bar issue and
other contentions advanced by the Employer and the Intervenor.