E. J. Lavino and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 806 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of E. J. LAVINO AND COMPANY, EMPLOYER and REUSENS
IRON WORKERS ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-1-1-2856.Decided JuZj 30, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing of-
ficer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members. *
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 and the individual named below claim
to represent employees 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.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed at the Em-
ployer's Reusens, Virginia, plant, including locomotive engineers,
samplers, truck drivers, and blowing engineers; but excluding chem-
ists, assistant chemists, plant engineers, foundry men, office clericals,
watchmen," and all supervisors.
'Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock.
1 At the hearing the Petitioner moved to amend its petition to exclude the watchmen.
United Steelworkers of America , CIO, herein called the Steelworkers , an Intervenor,
requested that these employees be included The watchmen perform the normal duties of
plant-protection employees in safeguarding the Employer 's property against fire , theft,
and destruction . We find that they are guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3)
of the Act , as amended . Accordingly , they are excluded. Matter of C. V. Hill & Company,
76 N L. R B. 158
78 N. L. R. B., No. 97.
806
E. J. LAVINO AND COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 2
807
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision 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-Series 5, 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 temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been re-
hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding
employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by Reusens Iron Workers Association, or by Luther H.
Hubbard,3 or by neither.
2 Having failed to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act , as amended, the
Steelworkers will not be accorded a place on the ballot . Matter of Rite-Form Corset
Company, 75 N. L. R B. 174.
8 After the hearing the Petitioner moved the Board to reopen the record for the purpose of
proving that Hubbard is in fact an agent of the Steelworkers , a non-complying union with
a contractual interest . The motion contains only the allegation that Hubbard was a former
official of a local union affiliated with the Steelworkers . Assuming the truth of this allega-
tion, we find that it does not provide a sufficient basis to support the Petitioner 's assertions
in this case . The motion is denied . Cf. Matter of Campbell Soup Company , 76 N. L. R. B.
950.