R. Appel, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 6, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

R. APPEL, INC. 7
4. In substantial accordance with the agreement of the parties,
we find that all employees employed in the Employer's Honolulu,
Hawaii, hotel and apartment properties, including kitchen, main-
tenance, and housekeeping employees, bellboys, bus boys, waiters and
waitresses, and desk clerk-switchboard operators,? but excluding office
and clerical employees, guards and/or watchmen, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act 8 constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication iii this
volume.]
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
' we shall include the desk clerk-switchboard operators in the unit as the record shows
that they spend less than 50 percent of their time performing clerical duties.
'The head chef and the no. 1 maid are excluded as the record shows that these
individuals possess supervisory authority within the meaning of the amended Act.
R. APPEL, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-696. July 6; 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 C. Weld, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed..
Pusuant 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members 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 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production. and main-
tenance employees excluding office clerical employees, professional
:employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Em-
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
95 NLRB No. 2.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer contends that seasonal employees should be excluded from the
unit.
The, Employer is engaged in the manufacture of handbags. During
the greater part of the year it manufactures handbags from leather,
but during the spring of each year there is a reduced market for
leather handbags and the Employer engages in an intensive produc-
tion of plastic handbags for summer use. The Employer maintains a
year-around work force of approximately 90 employees. These em-
ployees work on leather handbags during the major portion of the
year, but'in the spring approximately 50 percent of these employees
are assigned to the manufacture of plastic handbags. At the be-
ginning of February of each year the Employer begins to hire 'seasonal
employees to work on plastic handbags only. A peak level of such
employment is reached and maintained during April and part of May
when approximately 90 seasonal employees are employed. Layoffs
among these employees commence during the latter part of May and
all the seasonal employees are laid off, by mid-June or the first of July.
The record discloses that, although the seasonal employees are less
skilled and are paid at lower rates than the regular employees, they
nonetheless work alongside and'among regular employees and per-
form tasks similar to those performed by regular employees. We find,
therefore, that all employees working at jobs, within the unit are
included and entitled to representation therein, irrespective of the
tenure of their employment?
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's Ithaca, New York, plant, including sea-
sonal employes, but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
5.'The Petitioner would include among those eligible to vote, and
the -Employer would exclude, the seasonal employees employed to
work on plastic handbags. Although the Employer gives reemploy-
ment preference to applicants who have worked in the plant during
prior seasons, no effort is made by the Employer to recall such em-
ployees and the record reveals that at the time of the hearing only
3 of the seasonal employees had been previously employed by
the Employer. Moreover, it does not appear that these employees
have a reasonable expectancy of becoming regular employees as each
year only 1 or 2 seasonal employees are assigned to fill vacancies
which occur among the regular employees. Further, the record shows
that unusually high rates of turnover and absenteeism exist among
the seasonal employees, which require the Employer to, carry from
25 to 30 additional employees on its payroll to maintain its required
2 Gerber Products Company, 93 NLRB 1668.
DEENA ARTWARE, INCORPORATED 9
labor force. Although the seasonal employees work in close contact
with the regular employees, we are of the opinion that their tenure
of employment is not sufficiently regular or substantial to entitle them
to participate in the election, and accordingly, we find that they are
ineligible to vote .3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Gerber Products Company, supra ; The Heekin Can Company , 88 NLRB 726.
DEENA ARTWARE , INCORPORATED and UNITED BRICK AND CLAY WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA , AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR . Case No. 9-CA-44. July 6, 1951
Supplemental Decision
On October 25, 1949, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued its Decision and Order in this case,1 in which
it found that Deena Artware, Incorporated, herein called the Re-
spondent, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, and ordered the Respondent to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial action.
The Board thereafter petitioned the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Sixth Circuit to enforce its Order against the Respond-
ent. On October 12, 1950, the court granted a motion by the Re-
spondent to remand the case to the Board for the purpose of
receiving and considering additional evidence. The order of remand
does not indicate that the court has as yet considered the merits of
the Board's Decision and Order'
Pursuant to the remand, a further hearing was held before Herman
Marx, the Trial Examiner who presided at the original hearing. On
February 9, 1951, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental In-
terinediate Report, in which he found that the additional evidence
received required no change in the Board's Decision and Order, and
recommended that the Board reaffirm it without modification, as set
forth in the copy of the Supplemental Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Supple-
mental Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Supple-
mental Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case (including the original record), and
1 86 NLRB 732.
95 NLRB No. 6.