Sawyer Machine Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 94 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAWYER MACHINE WORKS and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS LODGE "No. 1311 (INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER. Case
No. 36-RC-413. February 7, 1951
Supplemental Decision , Direction of Election, and Order
On December 8, 1950, the Board issued a Decision and Order I dis-
missing the petition in the above-entitled case. Upon its own motion,
the Board has reconsidered this Decision and Order, it appearing that
an arithmetic error was committed which necessitates a reversal of
the Board's former decision.
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
The Board now finds :
1. In 1949, the Employer purchased material originating without
the State of Oregon in the amount approximately of $69,750. This
amount is equivalent to 6.9 percent of the required $1,000,000 which
the Board has established as a minimum in this category before it will
assert jurisdiction? In the same year, the Employer provided goods
and services in the approximate amount of $38,300 for firms which
sell goods in excess of $25,000 outside the State. This amount con-
stitutes 76.6 percent of the minimum requirement of $50,000 which
the Board has established as a criterion before it will assert jurisdic-
tion in this category.-3 Also in the same year the Employer made
direct interstate sales in an approximate amount of $5,328 which is
21.3 percent of the requirement of $25,000, the minimum the Board
has established for the assertion of jurisdiction in this category.'
The sum of the above percentages is therefore in excess of the over-all
minimum requirements which the Board recently adopted .5 The
Board, therefore, finds that not only is the Employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act but that the Board should assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
192 NLRB 580.
2 Dorn's House of Miracles , Inc., 91 NLRB 632.
3 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
4 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company , Limited, 91 NLRB 618.
6 The Rutledge Paper Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
93 NLRB No. 3.
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY ' 95
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that the
following employees of the Employer constitute a. unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer, at its Eugene, Oregon, shop, includ-
ing those engaged in making, assembling, erecting, dismantling, and
repairing of machinery and equipment and/or parts thereof per-
formed by the Company on or off its premises but excluding office
employees, administrative employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding issued by the Board on December 8, 1950, be, and it
hereby is, vacated and set aside.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1035. February 7,1951
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 P. Von Rohr,
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 organizations 1 involved claim to represent certain
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 Petitioner and the Intervenor agree that the appropriate
unit should consist of the Employer's production and maintenance
1 The hearing officer properly - granted intervention to the United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, herein called the Intervenor
93 NLRB No. 15.