T-H Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 1246 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

12M DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumstances the Board's decision: in Anheuser-Busch, Inc.; 101
NLRB 346, is applicable-there was no dispute "as to the assignment
of work in existence at the time of the strike." [Emphasis supplied.]
For the above reasons, I would quash the notice of hearing on this
ease.
T-H Products Company and Robert G. Myers, et al., Petitioners
and Truck Drivers and Helpers , Dairy Employees , Warehouse
Workers, Taxi Drivers, Local 414, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, AFL. Case No. 13-RD-1248. August 26,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition for decertification duly, filed under Section 9 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert
Kleen, heating - officer. The hearing officer's rulings are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is an Indiana corporation, engaged in the manu-
facture of grease fittings. Total production for the preceding year
exceeded $300,000 all of which was shipped directly to points outside
the State of Indiana. Upon these facts we find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioners assert that the Union is no longer the bargain-
ing representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of certain
employees of the Employer. As appears below, the Union is currently
recognized by the Employer as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive'of the employees involved.
3.. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9v
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons: -
Pursuant to a consent-election agreement, an election was held on
February 2, 1955, under the auspices of the Indiana State Labor Divi-
sion. Having won the election, the Union was certified on February
23, 1955, by the State board as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive for a production and maintenance unit. Negotiations for a con-
tract followed immediately thereafter with no success. As a result,
on April 25, the Union called a strike which at the time of the Board's
hearing on'July 12 was still in effect. No bargaining sessions have
been held since June 1.
The decertification Petitioners and the Employer urge that, as the
Employer is clearly engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
113 NLRB No. 112.
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 1247
Act, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction and that the 12-month pro-
hibition against Board elections in Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act 1
should not apply where an earlier State board election was held. The
Union contends that, as the Employer and the Union had agreed to be
bound by the results of the election for at least 1 year, the decertifica-
tion petition should be dismissed.
In Interboro Chevrolet Co., Inc.,' the particular unions and the em-
ployer conducted an election among the employees involved which was
won by the unions. Shortly thereafter a decertification petition was
filed. A majority of the Board stated that "We do not believe that
sufficient safeguards are provided in the type of election in question
to protect employees in the exercise of their choice of a bargaining
representative, and are therefore unwilling to accord to the results
of such an election the same effect we would attach to a determination
of representatives based upon an election conducted by a Government
agency, or upon one privately conducted, but with an impartial over-
seer in charge, wherein the true desires of employees with respect to
representation are reflected with a high degree of certainty." In the
instant case the election was held under the auspices of a responsible
State government agency and it is not contended that the election was
affected by any irregularities. In these circumstances, we shall ac-
cord the same effect to the results of the State election as we would at-
tach to a determination of representatives based upon an election con-
ducted by the Board. Accordingly, as the employees involved herein
have had an opportunity to express their desires as to a bargaining
representative within the 12-month period prescribed in the Act, we
shall not direct a Board election at this time. We shall, therefore, dis-
miss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
1 Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act provides in part as follows: "No election shall be di-
rected in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which , in the preceding twelve-
month period, a valid election shall have been held."
2 111 NLRB 783.
The Dow Chemical Company, Texas Division and Local Union
716, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
Petitioner . Case No. 39-RC-918. August 26, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before C. L. Stephens, hearing offi-
113 NLRB No. 121.