The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1749 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 1749
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Wil-
liam Sprotte and Richard Stahl, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. By such discrimination and by threatening and interrogating employees
concerning concerted activities, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFrrTINGi
INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER.
Oase No. 4-RC-1801. April 10, 1953
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph A. Weston,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing 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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 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
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of tires, tubes, and
other rubber products at plants in various parts of the United States.
Since 1948 the Employer and the Intervenor have bargained collec-
tively for a multiplant unit including the production and maintenance
employees at Pottstown, Pennsylvania, here in question. The Pe-
1 Local Union No. 336 , United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
103 NLRB No. 146.
257965-54-vol. 108-111
1750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
titioner seeks to represent all maintenance employees or certain
departments composed of maintenance and boilerroom employees of
the Pottstown plant. In its brief it seeks as an alternative nine al-
leged craft units.
In 1946 the Intervenor was certified as the bargaining representa-
tive of a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Potts-
town plant. In 1948 the representatives of the local union at Potts-
town and 7 other of the Employer's plants met with the Employer
and International representatives of the Intervenor and negotiated
an agreement prescribing uniform terms and conditions of employ-
ment for all production and maintenance employees at the 8 plants.
Changes in the 1948 agreement were subsequently negotiated in 1949,
1950, 1951, and, most recently, August 24, 1952. The master agree-
ments provide for negotiations of supplementary agreements at the
various local plants which do not contradict or conflict with the pro-
visions of the. master contract.
We find that the proposed unit or units are inappropriate because
they would include employees of only one plant where there has been
an effective history of collective bargaining on a multiplant basis.2
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.3
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
8 See Libbey Owens -Ford Glass Company, 78 NLRB 1170; International Paper Company,
Southern Kraft Division, 101 NLRB 759.
D In view of our decision above, we find it unnecessary to rule upon other objections to
the unit raised by the Employer and the Intervenor and the issue of contract bar.
INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS , INC. and INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPER GUILD,
LOCAL No. 70, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD , CIO and EMPLOYEES
PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION , INDEPENDENT . Case No. 35-CA-290.
April 14, 1953
Decision and Order
On November 26, 1952, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), or (5) of the
Act, as alleged in the complaint, and recommended that the complaint
against the Respondent be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel and the Guild filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs; the Respondent and the Association also filed briefs.
103 NLRB No. 151.