Superior Cable Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 65 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SUPERIOR CABLE CORPORATION 65
Superior Cable - Corporation • and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, • Chauff eurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
AFL, Local No. 71, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-735. September
15,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued-herein on
May 16, 1955,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 9,
1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eleventh Region, among employees in the unit found appro-
priate by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots was
furnished the parties. The tally shows that of the 41 ballots cast in
the election, 32 were for, and 8 were. against, the Petitioner, with
1 ballot being challenged.
On June 15, 1955, the Employer filed timely objections to the con-
duct of the election.' The Acting Regional Director investigated the
objections and, on July 20, 1955, issued and duly served upon the
parties a report on objections, in which he recommended that the
objections be overruled and the Petitioner be certified. Within the
proper time therefor, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
Upon the basis of the objections, the exceptions, and the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following findings :
The Acting Regional Director found that the Employer's objection,
alleging that the Petitioner made no request for recognition before
filing the petition, raised no substantial and material issues concerning
the election because the Board had previously considered and rejected
this contention in its Decision and Direction of Election. Although
the Employer is aware of the Advance Pattern case 3 wherein the
Board found a similar contention lacking in merit, it urges in its
exceptions that the Board reconsider and reverse that decision. As we
have heretofore held,4 we perceive no good reason why we should
reverse that decision. Moreover, as this question has been fully liti-
gated heretofore and no matter not previously considered by the Board
has been advanced by the Employer, we find the Employer's excep-
tions to be without merit. Accordingly, we adopt the recommenda-
tions of the Acting Regional Director, and overrule the objections.
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 On July 15, 1955, the Employer by letter to the Regional Director, withdrew the second
ground alleged as a basis for its objections.
8 80 NLRB 29.
4 General Shoe Corporation, 109 NLRB 618, 619. See, also, Nephi Processing Plant, Inc.,
107 NLRB 647, 648.
114 NLRB No. 21.
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the Petitioner has obtained a majority of the ballots cast in the
election, we shall, as recommended by the Acting Regional Director,
certify that labor organization as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, Local No. 71,
as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the
Employer in the appropriate unit.]
Bazley and Junedale Meat Markets Company and Paul Vander-
stelt, Petitioner and Local Union No. 539 of the Amalgamated
Meatcutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, A. F.
of L. Case No. 7-RD-195. September 15, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Russell
W. Bradley, hearing officer. The hearing officer'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. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union, a labor organization currently recognized by the Employer as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees designated
in the petition, is no longer the exclusive bargaining representative as
defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The Union contends that no question concerning representation
exists because it has a contract with the Employer, covering the em-
ployees designated in the petition. The Employer contends, inter alia
that the contract cannot bar an election because it contains an illegal
union-security clause.
The contract in question contains the following union-security
clause :
The Union shall be the sole bargaining agent and representative
of those classifications of employees covered by this AGREE-
MENT in collective bargaining with the Employer. A non-mem-
ber may be hired by the understanding that he or she must make
immediate application for membership to the Union and shall
i The Employer operates 43 meat markets in 6 States. The total sales of the markets
are in excess of $10,000,000 Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case . Hogue and Knott Supermarkets , 110 NLRB 543.
114 NLRB No. 20.