Emerson & Stevens Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 964 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other companies. Nothing appears in the record to negate the in-
ference which thus arises that here, unlike the situation with regard to
the Employer-owned boats, the Employer does not require the "lien
boat" captains to deliver all their catches to it. Nor does the Em-
ployer generally deduct any fixed share of the catch of a "lien boat"
for application to the debt, but accepts such payments as the "lien
boat" owners desire to make. Furthermore, since the boats are in-
dependently owned, the Employer does not have the right to control,
and cannot control, the type of fishing done, the layovers between
fishing trips, or the hiring and firing of the boatmen. Accordingly,
we find that the captains of the "lien boats" are independent con-
tractors and that they and their boatmen are not employees of the
Employer. The petition is therefore dismissed as to those individuals.
In view of our conclusion that there is an employer-employee re-
lationship between the Employer and the captains and boatmen on the
Employer-owned boats, 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 unit : Although the parties are in general agree-
ment as to the appropriate unit, the Petitioner would include the cap-
tains while the Employer would exclude them on the basis of their
supervisory duties. As the record clearly establishes that the cap-
tains have the power to hire and discharge employees, and are there-
fore supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, we
shall exclude them from the unit.
We find that all fishermen or boatmen on the Employer-owned
boats, excluding the captains and all or any other employees, con-
stitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of the Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
EMERSON & STEVENS MFG. CO., INC., AND SPILLER AXE AND TOOL COM-
PANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 1-RC-2226. August 3, 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 Robert S. Fuchs,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
95 NLRB No. 109.
EMERSON,-&-,STEVENS.MFG.=.CO., INC 965
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 [Members` Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The two corporations involved in. this proceeding are engaged
in the manufacture an l sale of axes. and scythe blades. Emerson &
Stevens Mfg. Co., Inc., herein called Emerson, admits, and the record
substantiates, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
• the Act. Spiller Axe and Tool Company denies that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Both corporations con-
tend that their operations are not so .integrated that their employees
may together constitute a single appropriate unit.
The two corporations have interlocking officers and directors, and
the stock of each is owned by the same group of individuals. Spill-
er's general manager, who is also the assistant general manager of
Emerson, is superintendent of both plants, supervises the factory
employees of both corporations, is responsible for the hiring, dis-
charging, and transferring of employees of both, establishes the labor
policies for Spiller employees, and together with Emerson's general
manager establishes its labor policies. The employees of both Emer-
son and Spiller have similar working conditions, skills, wage scales,
holidays, and vacation benefits. The plants of the two companies
,are, located within 100 feet of each other. In the past there has been
some intercha} ge of personnel between the. two plants, and, at the
present, two employees on the Spiller payroll perform services for
Emerson from 6 to 9 hours each week.
In view of the foregoing; we find, contrary to the contention of
the two corporations, that Emerson and Spiller constitute a single
Employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.'
During the past year, the Employer's 2 sales were in excess of
$95,000, approximately $60,000-o
.
f which were shipped outside the
State.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.8
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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of-the Act.
Sellers Manufacturing Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 202.
As the two corporations are a single Employer within the meaning of the Act, the
Board has considered the totality of their operations in deciding to assert jurisdiction
in this case.
Stanisiaius Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618.
966 DECISIONS OF: • NATIONAL; ZABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks 'to represent a single.'ui it: of. production and
-maintenance employees in: they Emerson and Spiller plants.. The two.
corporations agree as to the composition of. the unit, but contend that,
there should be separate units covering einployees,of each company.
'In the light of the facts set forth above, on the basis of which we
have found that the two corporations: constitute,a single Employer
within the meaning of the Act, 'we find that the single unit as sought .
'by the Petitioner is appropriate. '
We find that all production and' maintenance employees of the
Employer, including the fireman-watchman, hilt. 'excluding office
:clerical and professional employees, guards, watchmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute. a unit appropriate for the
"purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9^
-(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from, publication in this,
-volume.] .
4 As it appears from the record that the fireman-watchman does not spend more than
50 percent of his time as a guard , we shall include him in the unit. Wiley Mfg. Inc:,.
.92 NLRB 40 . . . . ..
THr VAN IDERSTINE COMPANY and MEAT AND POULTRY WASTE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. +-RC-3O4 . August 8,.
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 James.. V. Altieri,. 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-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.'
9. The labor organizations involved claim to' represent certain.
employees of the Employer.
I The requests by, the Employer and the Intervenor for oral argument are, denied'
because in our opinion the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and the-
positions of the parties.
- 95 NLRB No.117.,-