Snow & Nealley Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 390 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of SNow & NEALLEY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and HOWARD
A. THOMAS, PETITIONER and FEDERAL LA13011 U\10_\', LOCAL No.
24074, A. F. L., UNION
Case No. 1-RD-5.-Decided February 26,1948
Mr. TWPm. Pickard, of Bangor, Maine, for the Employer.
Mr. Ballard S. Keith, of Bangor, Maine, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ernest Eaton, of Bangor, Maine, for the Union.
DECISION
AN D
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, hearing in this case
was held at Bangor, Maine, on November 6, 1947, before Thomas H.
Ramsey, hearing officer.? The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirlned.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Snow & Nealley Company is a Maine corporation engaged at Bangor,
Maine, in the manufacture of lumbering tools, and in the sale of mill
and lumbering supplies and hardware specialties. Only the employees
in its manufacturing plant are involved in this proceeding.
In its manufacturing operations the Employer uses raw materials
consisting principally of lumber, steel bars, and castings. During the
calendar year ending September 30, 1947, the Employer purchased
Iaw materials valued in excess of $75,000, of which approximately 50
percent was obtained from sources outside the State. During the same
period it sold manufactured products in the value of $270,000, of
which approximately 20 percent was shipped to points outside the
State.
^ Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Bo.ud \Iembcis [Houston, Reynolds, and
Gray]
76 N L. R. B , No. 53.
390
SNOW & NEALLEY COMPANY 391
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
'II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED
The Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the representative
of the Employer's employees as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, was established on July 26, 1946, in Case No. 1-8-
3194, as exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's em-
ployees as a result of a consent election.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On July 26, 1946, as noted above, the Union became exclusive repre-
sentative of the Employer's employees as a result of a consent elec-
tion. On January 7, 1947, the Employer executed an exclusive col-
lective bargaining agreement with the Union for the term of 1 year,
with provision for renewal from year to year thereafter unless notice
to terminate was given by either party at least 30 days prior to the
terminal date of the contract. The Union contends that this contract
is a bar to the instant proceeding.
In resolving the issue of "contract-bar"' in decertification cases, the
Board will apply the same rules of decision as have been, and still are,
applied with respect to petitions for investigation and certification of
representatives.' In fact, it would seem that we are required to do so
by Section 9 (c) (2) of the amended Act.3
Inasmuch as the instant petition was filed on October 8, 1947, before
the operative date of the automatic renewal clause, the contract exe-
cuted on January 7, 1947, would not be a bar to a certification pro-
ceeding.4 We, accordingly, find that the contract is, similarly, no
bar to the instant decertification proceeding.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APP11OPRIATE UNIT
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Bangor plant, excluding office and clerical employees,
I See Report of Senate Labor Committee, No. 105, 80th Cong, 1st Sess., pp. 10, 25.
3 Section 3 ( c) (2) requires that, in determining whether a question of representation
affecting commerce exists, the Board apply "the same regulations and rules of decision
. . irrespective of the identity of the persons filing the petition or the kind of relief
sought . . "
Matter of Dretoi ys Limited, U S A , Inc., 74 N L It B 31
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foremen, and all supervisors, guards, and professional employees, as
defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.s
V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As indicated in an earlier proceeding,' we are not precluded from
directing an election on the instant petition by the fact that the Union
has failed to comply with the registration and filing requirements of
Section 9 (f) and (]l) of the amended Act. Accordingly, we shall
place the Union's mine on the ballot in the election directed herein-
after. Under our policy, the Union would be certified if it wins the
election, provided that at that time it is in compliance with Section
9 (f) and (h) of the Act. Absent such compliance, the Board would
only certify the arithmetical results of the election.'
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Snow & Nealley Company,
Bangor, Maine, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the (late of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the First Region, subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period innnechately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the (date of the election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Federal
Labor Union, Local No. 24014, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
This is virtually the unit in the consent election proceeding. as a result of winch the
Union denionstiated its status as bargaining representative The description of the unit
has been changed slightie to contorm iuth the piovisions of the amended Act
^Jlatter of Ffarras Foundnt d Machine Company, 76 N L It B 118
Matte, of Hairas Foundry d Machine Company, supra.