Dick Brothers, Inc., 1054 (1962)

ties as carried out by the Foundation and Gas Technology are operated on a commercial or business basis. These two divisions of the Employer furnish research services to industrial concerns and the Federal Government which have as their purpose the improvement of manufacturing processes . Moreover , their sponsors reimburse them for all cost engendered in connection with these services. In return for research services rendered during the past year, the Foundation is expected to receive from its sponsors approximately $2,900,000. This organization in addition receives a substantial income from manufacturing concerns for use of its patents. At least with respect to the Foundation ' s operations , education appears to be of secondary significance. The facts herein establish that the Employer ' s sponsored research projects are of a business nature. We are of the opinion and find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.

This finding is unaffected by the fact that the Employer does not operate for profit or that its activities in interstate, commerce involve the communication of information rather than the transmission of specific products.

I regard the activities here involved as distinguishable from the university library which was involved in the Trustees of Columbia University case, and a symphony orchestra which was involved in the Philadelphia Orchestra Association case. It clearly falls within the California Institute of -Technology case which was decided subsequent to them.

DICK BROTHERS, INC. and STEEL WORKERS FEDERATION,

Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2055. February 3, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER

Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Julius Topol, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

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 em ployees of the Employer.' iUnited Steelworkers of America, CIO, hereinafter referred to as Steelworkers, and its Local 1626 intervened at the hearing on the basis of a current contractual interest. Petitioner objected to the intervention of Local 1626 and contended that it is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, because it is defunct In view of our finding in paragraph numbered 3, below, Petitioner's objection and contention are without merit.

    107 NLRB No. 219.

    DICK BROTHERS, INC. 1055

  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:

    The Intervenor contends that its current contract with the Employer is a bar to the petition in this case . The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because it was terminable at will at the time its petition was filed and was subsequently terminated . The Petitioner further contends that there has been a schism within the bargaining unit leading to confusion as to the identity of the bargaining agent and resulting in the defunctness of Local 1626 . The Employer takes no position as to contract bar.

    Since 1937 or 1938, the Employer has had successive contracts with either or both of the Intervenors covering its production and maintenance employees . The most recent agreement was executed on January 7, 1953, naming only the Employer and Steelworkers as parties , but bearing the signatures of Local 1626 officers as well as Steelworkers officers. That agreement runs until September 1, 1954 , with automatic renewal from year to year thereafter in the absence of 60 days ' notice to terminate . It provides for reopening upon notice by either party 60 days prior to September 1, 1953, for the purpose of negotiating wage modifications . In the event that no agreement is reached in negotiations pursuant to such reopening , it provides that Steelworkers shall have the right to strike , and the Employer the right to lock out, in support of their respective positions . However , upon the occurrence of either strike or lockout, the agreement is to terminate , subject to reinstatement if and when agreement is reached on the matter in dispute. Except for such 'termination ,' the agreement is to continue in effect, with such modifications as may be negotiated, until its expiration on September 1, 1954.

    On June 23, 1953, Steelworkers notified the Employer of its desire to negotiate wage modifications pursuant to the wage reopening provision of the agreement . Meetings were held for this purpose but no agreement had been reached at the time of the hearing.

    On May 20, 1953, after conducting an organizational campaign among the Employer ' s employees , the Petitioner sent the Employer a letter in which it stated that a majority of the Employer ' s production and maintenance employees desired the Petitioner to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining and requested a meeting for the purpose of negotiating an agreement . This letter was not answered . On July 21, 1953, the Petitioner sent an identical letter to the Employer . On July 27 the petition in this case was filed . Thereafter, on July 29, 1953, on petition of 14 members of Local 1626, a special meeting of Local 1626 was held at a meeting place in the building which housed Petitioner ' s offices . Local 1626 meetings were regularly held at a different location . Use of the hall by Local 1626 was arranged by Kondrath, the Petitioner's president, although the rent therefor was paid by Endy, president of Local 1626. Mimeographed notices of the meeting, prepared in the Petitioner ' s office, were posted on the union bulletin boards at the Employer's plant and were handed to each employee by the Local 1626 stewards. Thesenoticesdidnotdisclose the purpose for which the meeting was called. The special meeting was attended by 48 out of the 120 members of Local 1626. Endy presided over the meeting and all other local officers were present.' The membership discussed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT