Superior Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 1, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

SUPERIOR FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
Superior Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc., Em-
ployer and Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 9-RC-7199
September 1, 1967
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By MEMBERS BROWN,JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held at Florence , Kentucky , on April
7 and 24 , 1967, before James K. L. Lawrence,
Hearing Officer of the National Labor Relations
Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three -member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error . They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner , Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO , and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Intervenor, are
labor organizations claiming to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner herein seeks an election among
the Employer ' s production and maintenance em-
ployees. The Intervenor contends that recognition,
granted to it by the Employer on March 22 , bars an
election at this time , citing Keller Plastics Eastern.
Inc.' The record shows that , in February 1967, the
Intervenor began organizing the Employer's em-
ployees and, on March 17, notified the Employer
that it represented a majority of the employees and
wished to negotiate an agreement . On March 20,
the Employer wrote the Intervenor that it was
willing to meet with the Intervenor 's representa-
tives. On March 22, 1967 , representatives of the
Intervenor met with S. C. Brant , the Employer's at-
torney . At this meeting , Brant, relying on the Inter-
venor 's representation as to the authenticity of the
157 NLRB 583
See Sound Contractors Association, 162 N LRB 364
'See Rheingold Breiverie t, Inc, 162 NLRB 384
The unit, as amended at the hearing, was stipulated to by the parties
An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 9 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and
309
signatures on the designation cards , recognized the
Intervenor . The Petitioner meanwhile started its or-
ganizational drive in the early part of March and, on
March 22 , the day recognition was granted to the
Intervenor , filed its petition for an election, sup-
ported by a showing of interest of 33 cards out of a
unit of approximately 45 employees.
From the above facts , it is clear that both the
Petitioner and the Intervenor were carrying on or-
ganizational activities among the Employer's em-
ployees during the month of March 1967, and that,
apparently , both Unions succeeded in getting
authorization or designation cards from at least 50
percent of the employees in the unit . From this fact
alone , it is clear that there was a substantial
question concerning representation of the em-
ployees, as of March 22, 1967, the date recognition
was extended to the Intervenor.
We find that this recognition agreement may not
be considered a bar within the rule announced in
Keller Plastics Eastern , Inc. There is no showing
here that recognition was extended to the Inter-
venor at a time when only that union was actively
engaged in organizing the Employer ' s employees.2
On the contrary, the very fact that the Petitioner
secured cards from more than 50 percent of the em-
ployees in the week preceding March 22, clearly
shows (without going into the question of Inter-
venor 's majority as of March 22) that there had
been an active organizing campaign going on just
prior to the grant of recognition and that a question
concerning employee choice existed when recogni-
tion was extended, regardless of whether this fact
was conveyed to the Employer or its representa-
tives. Accordingly, we find that the petition herein
was timely filed, and that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of cer-
tain employees of the Employer , within the meaning
of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.:'
4. The following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:4
All production and maintenance employees of
the Employer at its factory in Florence, Ken-
tucky, excluding all office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees , and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election 5 omitted from publication.]
Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available
to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underirear
Inc , 156 NLRB 1236
167 NLRB No. 40