Timm Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 359 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

TIMM INDUSTRIES, INC. 359
Consequently, I conclude and find that the Lima Electric Products Shop Branch of the parent
national , namely the Metal and Machinery Workers of America, Ind , was and is a labor
organization required to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of
the amended Act. U Since, as found above, the said Lima Electric Products Shop Branch of
the parent national union has failed to comply with the above - mentioned filing requirements
of the amended Act, I conclude and find that the complaint herein improvidently issued.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record in the case , the undersigned
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Metal and Machinery Workers of America, Ind., and Lima Electric Products Shop
Branch , of Metal and Machinery Workers of America, Ind , are each labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The failure of the Lima Electric Products Shop Branch. of Metal and Machinery Workers
of America, Ind., to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the
amended Act precludes the issuance of a lawful complaint
[Recommendations omitted from publication. ]
u Cf. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 81 NLRB 295; Sunbeam Corporation, 98
NLRB 525; and Wells Manufacturing Corporation, 85 NLRB 23
TIMM INDUSTRIES, INC. and ONITA BRIGGS, Petitioner
TIMM INDUSTRIES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 63, AFL, Petitioner.
Cases Nos . 21-RD-175 and 21-RC-2948. April 2-4, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing on the consolidated cases t was
held before Leo Fischer, 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 these cases
to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson]..
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the
following reasons:
In Case No. 21-RD-175, Onita Briggs filed a petition to de-
certify the Intervenor as collective-bargaining agent for a unit
of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
I International Association of Machinists, Lodge 758, intervened in the consolidated
proceeding.
104 NLRB No. 53.
3 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles, California, aircraft parts, window sash, and
vending machine manufacturing plant.2 The Intervenor moved
to dismiss the decertification petition on the ground that Pe-
titioner Briggs is "fronting" for District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, a labor organization not in compliance
with the Act.
Briggs, who was not represented by counsel at the hearing,
testified that she was not acting for the UMW and that she re-
ceived no information or guidance regarding her petition from
any source other than the Board.
At the time Briggs initiated these proceedings, two UMW
representatives, Courtney and Pasternick, were attempting to
organize the employees for the UMW--passing out campaign
circulars and authorization cards, holding meetings, and calling
at employees' homes to ask them to solicit signatures on both
decertification and UMW authorization cards. Briggs testified
that she knew Courtney before she filed her petition and that he
called at her house once; that she had met Pasternick at a UMW
meeting, and had had other meetings with him. According to
the uncontradicted testimony of one of the employees at the
meeting held on February 12, 1953, at which Briggs stated she
met Pasternick, Pasternick was the principal speaker. After
pointing out the advantages of switching from the Intervenor to
the UMW, "he said that in the first place it would be necessary
for the election to decertify the Machinists . . . and after this
step was over with, that they would take the cards which they
had had signed by the employees of Timm's and present them
to the company and request the company to recognize them as
the bargaining agent for the employees of Timm Industries."
Briggs also testified that she did not distribute among the
employees the decertification -authorization cards which she
later presented, with signatures, to the Board. These cards,
she admitted, were distributed by UMW representatives to the
employees who signed them and returned them',to her. In fact,
she was unable at the hearing to distinguish clearly between a
UMW authorization card, which she identified as "a decertifi-
cation," and a decertification-authorization card, which she
identified as "the United Mine Workers card which they put
out at the gate down there, and the people signed it."
In these circumstances we find that Onita Briggs was in fact
acting on behalf of District 50, United Mine Workers of Ameri-
ca, -a non complying labor organization, and we shall grant the
motion to dismiss the petition in Case No. 21-RD-175.3
In Case No. 21-RC-2948, Petitioner Operating Engineers re-
quests the severance of a unit of all employees in the main-
tenance department, who have been included in the certified
contract unit represented by the Intervenor.4 The Employer
and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
2 The Intervenor was certified by the Board as representative of the production and main-
tenance unit February 3, 1947 (Case No. 21-R-3738).
3See Knife River Coal Mining Company, 91 NLRB 176; cf Consolidated Rendering Co.,
91 NLRB 1257.
4 See footnote 2, supra.
MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION 361
of inappropriate unit. These employees are classified by the
Employer as three maintenance mechanics and described by
their supervisor as welder, licensed electrician, and electri-
cian-leadman; and a stationery engineer, described as licensed
boiler operator. All work out of a separate building which is
equipped with maintenance tools and repair supplies. While
their primary duty is general repair and maintenance, they
average 25 percent or more of their time in production work,
and substitute for absent guard-janitors. None has served an
apprenticeship. We find that this maintenance group does not
constitute a homogeneous craft group, and in view of the bar-
gaining history may not appropriately be severed from the
broader unit.' We shall therefore dismiss the petition in Case
No. 2l-RC-2948.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in Cases
Nos. 21-RD-175 and 21-RC-2948 be, and they hereby are, dis-
missed.
5 The Nestle Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 1250.
MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
A.F.L., Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-2788. April 24, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION OF RUNOFF
ELECTION
On February 24, 1953, pursuant to a Decision and Direction
of Election by the Board,' as amended on February 12, 1953,2
an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled
proceeding under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region among the employees in
the stipulated unit at the Employer's plant in Whittier, Cali-
fornia. At the close of the election, a tally of ballots was issued
and duly, served upon the parties concerned. The tally revealed
that, of approximately 250 eligible voters 224 cast ballots, of
which 66 ballots were for the Petitioner, 88 ballots were for
the Intervenor, and 70 ballots were against the participating
labor organizations. There were no challenged and no void
ballots.
On March 2, 1953, the Petitioner timely filed with the Re-
gional Director a letter in which it stated:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102.61 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner in the
above-entitled matter, the International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, A.F. of L., hereby files
its Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of Election.
1 21-RC-2788 , dated December 23, 1952, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
2 The Board amended its Decision on this date to permit the United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, herein called the Intervenor , to intervene in this proceeding and appear on the ballot.
104 NLRB No. 63.