United States Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1216 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of any labor organization.
S. E. NICHOLS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NICHOLS DISCOUNT CITY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
BUTLERS' SHOE CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
THE RICHARDS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
BARBARA LYNN STORES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---- --------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
P.H.S. OF ELMIRA,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fourth
Floor , The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone No.
842-3112.
American Bridge Division, United States Steel Corporation and
S. L. Parker, Petitioner and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. ?0-RD-428. February 2, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Patricia J. Kenny. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
the Employer, the Petitioner, Carpenters' Union Local 1418, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and the
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support
of their positions.'
1 The request of United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called Steelworkers
Union, for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and briefs adequately
present the issues and positions of the parties. -
156 NLRB No. 108.
AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION, U.S. STEEL CORP. 1217
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the par-
ties, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tions 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a decertification election in a unit of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees of the Employer at the Employer's
Lockeford, California, plant. The Employer and the Steelworkers
Union contend that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds
that it was untimely filed during the certification year and that the
Petitioner seeks an election in an inappropriate unit. In addition, the
Employer contends that the petition is untimely because the Board is
prohibited from conducting an election at this time by Section 9 (c) (3)
of the Act. As we find merit in the contention based on Section 9 (c) (3),
we find it unnecessary to reach the issues raised by the other conten-
tions of the parties.
The Employer operates steel fabricating plants and sales offices
throughout the United States. This proceeding involves its plant at
Lockeford, California. On or about March 1, 1965 (all dates herein
are in 1965 unless stated otherwise), the Employer began its operations
there and on March 9 the Steelworkers Union filed a petition seeking
certification as exclusive bargaining representative of the production
and maintenance employees at the Lockeford plant (Case No. 20-RC-
6296). At the time of the hearing in Case No. 20-RC-6296, held on
March 26, the Employer employed 18 or 19 employees at the plant in
about the same number of job classifications. At that hearing, the
Employer testified that it expected to employ a maximum of 50 to 60
employees around June or July; that the workload and the size of the
work force at the Lockeford plant would vary greatly in the future;
and that it was possible but unlikely that employment there would
ever exceed 100 employees in about 25 job classifications. The Regional
2 Steelworkers Union was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of an
existing collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer. Carpenters' Local 1418,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Car=
penters' Union, and Boilermakers' & Blacksmiths' Local No. 749, International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers & Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called Boilermakers' Union, were permitted to intervene at the hearing
on the basis of a showing of interest . Subsequently , on December 2, the Boilermakers'
Union withdrew as an intervenor in this case.
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director found on the basis of this testimony that the work force at that
time constituted "a substantial and representative segment of the pro-
jected employee complement," and directed an election in a unit of all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer at the Em-
ployer's Lockeford, California, plant. The Boilermakers' Union,
which intervened in that case, requested the Board to review the
Regional Director's decision and dismiss the petition on the ground,
among others, that the expanding size of the unit made the petition
premature. On April 30, the Board, in a telegraphic order, denied the
Boilermakers' Union's request for review.
There were 21 employees, in 18 or 19 job categories, eligible to vote
at the election held on May 11 and as a result of that election the Steel-
workers Union was certified on May 19 as bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit. On August 23, the Petitioner filed the
instant petition, requesting decertification of the Steelworkers Union
as bargaining representative of the employees in the same unit, and, on
September 7, the hearing was held in the present case. At the time of
the hearing, there were approximately 80 employees in the unit.
Section 9(c) (3) of the Act provides: "No election shall be directed
in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preced-
ing twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held." In
implementation of this statutory policy, the Board has adopted the
policy of dismissing forth with petitions filed morethan 60 days prior to
the expiration of the 12-month period .41 As noted, the instant petition
was filed approximately 9 months prior to the expiration of the 12-
month statutory period. The Petitioner and the Carpenters' Union
urge in substance that no election would have been ordered by the
Board in April if the full extent of the expansion in the size of the unit
had been known at that time; that the employees who participated in
the election were not representative of the larger number of employ-
ees now at the plant; and that, therefore, the election held on May 11
was not a "valid" election which would preclude the holding of an
election at this time.
We find no merit in this contention. The election was held in the
same unit of employees as that in which the Petitioner now seeks an
election. Apart from the question of expanding unit, it is not argued
that this election was not "valid" within the meaning of Section 9(c)
(3). At all times since the time of the March hearing and the May
election, the Employer has been producing essentially the same types
of finished goods, with no substantial change in the number of job
categories. It is true that the number of employees at the plant has
increased considerably and that at the hearing in the earlier case the
3 See Vickers, Incorporated, 124 NLRB 1051, 1052-1053.
CLEVELAND STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 22 1219
Employer did not accurately predict the number of employees it would
shortly have at the plant. However, this fact, we believe, does not
impair the validity of an election which was valid when held.
Under these circumstances, and on the record as a whole, we find
that, because of the valid election held on May 11, 1965, the statute
precludes us from directing a new election to be held before the expira-
tion of 12 months from that date. We shall, therefore, in accord with
Board policy, dismiss the petition herein.4
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'Fedders-Qwigan Corporation, 88 NLRB 512, cited in Ray Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 3418 U.S.
96, 101-102. In Fedders-Quigan, the Board held that an increase in employment from
15 to 167 employees in slightly over 4 months did not impair the validity of an election
for the purpose of applying the bar of 9 (c) (3).
Cleveland Stereotypers ' Union No. 22, International Stereotypers'
and Electrotypers ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and
Western Press Incorporated . Case No. 8-CD-68. Febrwary 2,
1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Western Press
Incorporated, herein called the Employer, alleging a violation of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (D) by Cleveland Stereotypers' Union No. 22, Interna-
tional Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America,
AFIf-CIO, herein called the Stereotypers. Pursuant to notice, a hear-
ing was held on November 4 and 5, at Cleveland, Ohio, before Hearing
Officer John P. Falcone. The Employer, the Stereotypers, and Cleve-
land Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, Local 56, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Pressmen, appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine wit-
nesses , and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of
the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The Employer and the Pressmen filed briefs
which have been duly considered by the National Labor Relations
Board.
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-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
156 NLRB No. 110.
217-919^66-vol. 156-78