York Band Instrument Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1576 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of YORK BAND INSTRUMENT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 7-RC-692.-Decided December 30, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before W. A. Reinke,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
The Employer contends that in October 1949, it renewed a collective
bargaining agreement with York Band Employees Organization 1 for
an additional year to October 1950 and that this contract is a bar.
On October 15, 1947, the Employer and York Band Employees Or-
ganization signed a contract which contained the following termina-
nation clause :
0
1 York Band Employees Organization did not intervene in this proceeding. At the
hearing, however, the organization 's president , called as a witness by the Petitioner,
testified that the organization did not consider the contract a bar.
87 NLRB No. 155.
1576
YORK BAND INSTRUMENT COMPANY 1577
Article X
The principles hereinabove set forth shall remain in full force
and effect from year to year on notice by the YORK BAND
INSTRUMENT COMPANY and on acceptance by the YORK
BAND EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION
On October 14, 1949, after the Petitioner had filed the present
petition with the Board on September 1.9, the Employer notified its
employees that it was continuing the existing agreement. The con-
tracting union did not answer this notice. Even assuming, as the
Employer contends, that the union's silence constituted an acceptance
of the Employer's offer to renew the existing contract, we find that
this contract is not a bar because the attempted renewal occurred after
the timely filing of the present petition., °
4. The parties agree that the appropriate unit should include all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer, excluding
professional employees, office and clerical employees, shipping, receiv-
ing, and stock clerks, guards, and supervisors. The Petitioner would,
however, include, and the Employer exclude, a group of six seasonal
polishers and buffers.
These six men are regularly employed each year during the period
from about September to about December as polishers and buffers.
During this period, they work 5 hours a day after regular plant hours.
In view of the fact that they regularly work a substantial number of
hours for the Employer during a 3-month period and that this sea-
sonal employment recurs annually, we shall include the polishers and
buffers in the unit.3
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's plant at Grand Rapids, Michigan= excluding professional
employees, office and clerical employees, shipping, receiving, and stock
clerks, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
2 Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Company, 71 NLRB 316. The Employer further contends
that the petition should be dismissed because no employee requested an election. This
contention is without merit, as the petition itself is such a request.
S The Morrison Milling Company, 83 NLRB 800. For the same reasons we find that these
employees have sufficient interest in the conditions of employment and the outcome of the
election to entitle them to vote. Cocoline Products, Inc., 79 NLRB 1426, 1428.
1578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented, for the purposes of collective bargaining,
by bnternational Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO).