Courtland Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1292 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fashioned hosiery industry on an industrial basis. Of approximately
55 mills under contract with the Union and performing integrated
operations such as those at the Employer's plant, the Union's expert
witness was able to refer to only 2 at which the Union has contracts
covering knitters only. In addition, the record reveals that negotia-
tions between the Union and the organized industry before their im-
partial wage tribunal are conducted upon the basis of the total labor
cost to the employers, and not upon the specific pay rates of knitters
or other employees in the industry.
As stated above, I do not believe that the record justifies the estab-
lishment of a separate unit for knitters. On the contrary, because of
the pattern of bargaining in the industry'26 the Union's organizational
practices,27 the integration of the knitters' operations with those of
other employees in the plant,28 the absence of a formal apprenticeship
training program'29 the lack of any substantial distinction between
knitters and other employees,30 and because the skill of full-fashioned
hosiery knitters appears to be only a production talent 31 which can be
acquired in a comparatively short time, I would find that the group of
employees whom the Union seeks to represent do not constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining on either a craft
or any other basis.
20 Davis & Furber Machine Company , supra; Pacific Mills, 53 NLRB 164.
27 Pacific Mills, supra ; cf. Todd Shipyards Corporation , 63 NLRB 526.
Se Saco-Moc Shoe Corp.. supra ; L2berty Hosiery Mills, Inc., supra.
21 Davis & Furber Machine Company, supra; Gulf Oil Corporation , 79 NLRB 1274.
80 Footnote 19, supra.
81 Davis & Farber Machine Company, supra.
COURTLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), PETITIONER
COURTLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER..
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 676, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 4-RC-1092
and 4-RC-1141. August 23,1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
in the above cases before Harold X. Summers, hearing officer. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed."
1 Amalgamated Local 77, Playthings, Jewelry and Novelty Workers International Union,
CIO, hereafter called the Toy workers, an Intervenor herein, moved to dismiss the petition
in Case No. 4-RC-1092, in substance, on the grounds that (1) there is a contractual bar;
(2) the unit sought is inappropriate; (3) the Petitioner, herein called the UE, has made
95 NLRB No. 171.
COURTLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1293
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member 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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Toy Workers entered into a collective
bargaining agreement on February 1, 1950, which provided that it
was to continue in full force and effect until April 1, 1951, and there-
after from year to. year. unless either party gave written notice to
the other of its desire to terminate or modify this agreement at least
90 days prior to its expiration date. In accordance with the terms
of the contract, the Toy Workers notified the Employer by registered
letter dated December 28, 1956, of its desire to negotiate a new contract.
The petition in Case No. 4-RC-1092 was filed on February 26, 1951.
On or. about March 22, 1951, agreement on the terms of a new contract
was reached by the Employer and Toy Workers, and on March 29,
1951, the agreement was reduced to writing and signed by the parties..
The amended petition in Case No. 4-RC-1141 was filed on May 11,
1951.
The Employer and the Toy Workers urge a contractual bar. We
do not agree. The timely notice by the Toy Workers of its desire to
negotiate a new contract effectively prevented an automatic renewal
of the February 1, 1950, agreement; and, as the new contract was not
formally executed until after the filing o_ f the petition in Case No.
4-RC-1092, we find that no bar exists to a current determination of
representatives.2
no adequate showing of interest; ( 4) there Is a history of successful bargaining between.
the Toy workers ;and the Employer; and (5) an investigation should be made to determine
if the Petitioner has complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g); and (h)
of the Act. As to (1), (2), and (4), we find these contentions to be without merit for
the reasons set forth below in paragraphs numbered 3 and .4 respectively. As to ( 3), the
Petitioner 's showing is a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable
by the parties. Indiana Oxygen Company, 93 NLRB No. 130. .. We are administratively
satisfied that the Petitioner 's showing is both current and adequate . As to ( 5), the fact
of compliance by a labor organization which is required to comply is a matter for
administrative determination and is not litigable by the parties . Moreover, the Board is
administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance . See Sunbeam Corporation,
94 NLRB 844; Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917; cf. Highland Park . Manufacturing
Company, 71 S. Ct. 489 . Accordingly , the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
The International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , AFL, which
was permitted to intervene over the objection of the Toy workers, notified the Board, after
the hearing, that it desired to withdraw from these proceedings. We hereby grant this
withdrawal request, and therefore deem it unnecessary to rule on the propriety of the
Toy workers ' motion to dismiss the intervention.
Scripps-Howard Radio Station, Inc., 93 NLRB 1095 ; United States Rubber Company,
91 NLRB No. 213, and cases cited therein.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a 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.
4. The appropriate units :
Case No. 4-RC-1092
The UE seeks a unit composed of all production employees includ-
ing die makers and janitors but 'excluding maintenance employees.
The Toy Workers and the Employer contend that the present con-
tractual unit of all production employees excluding maintenance men
and die makers is the only appropriate unit 3 However, the Toy
Workers would include' Iand the Employer would exclude, the janitors..
The Employer is engaged in the assembly of mechanical toys. It
purchases some parts from subcontractors and stamps other parts in
its pressroom. As parts are received, they are stored in the receiving
department. They are then transferred to the assembly department
to be assembled. The completed toys are thereafter moved to the
shipping department where they are packed for shipment.
At the time of the hearing, there were two die makers working in
the die shop, maintaining, sharpening, repairing, and, on occasion,
making dies, which are used in the Employer's pressroom. The two
maintenance employees, working under the supervision of the general
foreman of the assembly department, perform all the maintenance
work in the assembly department .4 Some of their maintenance duties
consist of repairing machinery, building tables; repairing windows;
and performing electrical repair work. 'Although the nature of their
duties would indicate that they work at times in the production areas,
the record shows no interchange of work beween the maintenance men
and the production employees: The Employer's two janitors perform
regular janitorial duties throughout the entire plant.
The bargaining history' adverted to above shows that the produc-
tion employees alone have been represented by the Toy Workers, and
that the maintenance employees, die makers,' and janitors have been
without representation. As set forth above, none of the parties
would include the maintenance men. However, the UE would include
the die makers and the janitors.
8 The contract described the unit as follows : ". . . all production employees of the
employer at 6th and Jefferson Streets plant, excluding the clerical and office employees,
professional employees , supervisors , maintenance and toolmakers , as defined in the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947, and watchmen." Apparently the truck drivers who
are sought as a separate unit in Case No. 4-RC-1141 were included among the production
employees as laborers.
* It does. not appear that there are any other maintenance employees at the Employer's
plant.
COURTLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1295
On the basis of the above facts and the entire record it is clear that
the die. makers, maintenance men, and janitors' have essentially the
same ' interests and working conditions as the production workers.
Accordingly, as no adequate reason.5 has been presented which' would
warrant a departure from the Board's usual practice of including
production and maintenance employees in the same unit and, as-the
'die makers and the janitors are now sought by the UE as part of the
more comprehensive unit, and the maintenance men would otherwise
be without representation, we shall include all three categories in the
unite And, as a question concerning representation now exists among
all employees in the unit, Board policy requires the inclusion of die
makers, maintenance men, and janitors in the same voting'group with
the production employees.7
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plant in Camden, New Jersey, including the die makers,
maintenance men, janitors, matron, and stock boys, but excluding all
office and clerical employees, the truck drivers, professional employees,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning: of
.Section '9 (b) of the Act.
Case No. 4-RC-1141
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, Local 676, AFL, hereinafter known
as the Teamsters, seeks a unit of all truck drivers. 8 All the other
-parties agree that such a unit would be appropriate and do not wish
to appear on the ballot if the Board orders a separate election.
The truck drivers drive the Employer's trucks between the plant
and the warehouse, which is two blocks distant. They also assist in
the loading and unloading of the trucks, and one of the drivers, on
occasion, drives throughout the city on special errands. Although
the truck drivers have previously been included in the production
unit under the classification of laborer, they, are primarily engaged
in the driving of the Employer's trucks.
In view of the foregoing and the agreement of the parties as to
the requested unit, we find that all truck drivers, excluding supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, constitute a separate appropriate unit
" The president of the Employer was not aware of the reason for not including the
janitors under the collective bargaining agreement , but said, as to the die makers and
maintenance men, they were "entirely different categories. "
Cf. Western Picture Frame Company, 93 NLRB No. 52, and cases cited therein.
Blue Ribbon Creamery , 94 NLRB 201 ; Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76.
The record indicates that there are 2 or 3 regular truck drivers.
1296 DECISIONS OF'NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS -BOARD
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.9
5. The record shows that there is one employee at the Employer's
operation who divides his time equally between driving one of the
Employer's trucks and working as a laborer in the Employer's re-
ceiving, department.
We are of the opinion, and we find, that the part-time truck driver
has a sufficiently substantial interest in the conditions of employment
in both the plant unit and the truck drivers' unit and in the outcome
of both directed elections to entitle him to vote in each election. Ac-
cordingly, we shall permit the part-time truck driver to vote in both
elections. 10
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
IInternational Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division , et al., 94 NLRB 483.
10 Cf. Swift and Company, 58 NLRB 657; Wadham's Division of Socony -Vacuum Oil
Company, 54 NLRB 1164.
SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION
OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 34-RC-88. August 23,
1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Pickens, 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, Reynolds, and Murdock].
I At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Petitioner had presented no proof of'an adequate showing of interest among the employees
in the unit requested . The hearing officer overruled the motion , stating that the question
of whether or not a petitioner has made an adequate showing of merest is an administrative
matter not subject to attack at the hearing. We affirm the hearing officer 's ruling. J. P.
Stevens & Co ., Inc., 93 NLRB 1513 ; Ballantine Produce Co., Inc., 81 NLRB 629.
The Employer also moved to dismiss the petition ( a) on grounds relating to the com-
pliance status of the Petitioner, and (b ) on the grounds that its operations do not affect
interstate commerce , and, that its operations are so local in nature that assertion of
jurisdiction by the Board in this case would not effectuate the policies of the Act. The
hearing officer referred these motions to the Board. As to (a), the fact of compliance, by a
labor organization which is required to comply, is a matter for administrative determination
and is not litigable by the parties. Moreover, the Board is administratively satisfied that
the Petitioner is in compliance . See Sunbeam Corporation, 94 NLRB 844; Swift &
Company, 94 NLRB 917; Cf. Highland Park Manufacturing Co., 71 S. Ct. 489. As
to (b), we find , for the reasons appearing in paragraph 1, infra, that the Employer is
engaged in commerce and that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion. The Employer's motions to dismiss are hereby denied.
95 NLRB No. 170.