Arrow Armature Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 396 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of ARRow ARMATURE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT c^, AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3-7341. -Decided June 07, 1<94i
Mr. Bernard A . Riemer , of Boston , Mass., for the Employer.
Mr. John Collins , of Boston , Mass., for the Petitioner.
11r. Lloyd S. Greenidge, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Boston,
Massachusetts, on May 16, 1947, before Robert E. Greene, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free froln
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TCUE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Arrow Armature Company is a Massachusetts corporation engaged
in the repair of generators and armatures in Allston, Massachusetts.
During the year 1946, the Employer purchased raw materials valued
at more than $60,000, of which in excess of 90 percent was purchased
outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During the same
period, the Employer's sales and services were valued at more than
$100,000, of which approximately 90 percent involved shipments to
points outside the Commonwealth.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
if. TllE ORGANTZA'I`ION 1NVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.'
I The C I 0 filed a waiver of any right to object to nnv election which may he held
in the instant proceeding on the basis of any of the acts alleged as unfair labor practices
in Case No. 1-C-3084.
74 N L. R B., No. 09.
396
ARROW ARMATURE COMPANY
III. TN E QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
397
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1V. 7 fin A I'L'ROPRIA 'rl; UNIT
0
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer including a janitor and a stockroom clerk,
but excluding office and clerical employees, executives, and other
supervisory employees. Except for the inclusion of the janitor and
the stockroom clerk and a contention that it has no maintenance em-
ployees, the Employer does not dispute the appropriateness of the
unit proposed.
Janitor: This employee sweeps the plant area, cleans the offices
and rest rooms, and helps to carry generators from one floor to the
next; lie is in constant contact with the production employees. The
janitor is a maintenance employee and we shall include him in the
unit.'
Stockroom clerk: The Employer employs one stockroom clerk who
performs the customary duties of such position. This employee works
in a wire enclosed crib located on one of time production floors and
under the same supervision as the production employees. He main-
tains a record of'all parts received, classifies and stores them, and pre-
pares requisitions on parts taken out of the stockroom. This clerk
is essentially a factory clerical employee and, in ,accordance with our
usual policy, we shall include him in the bargaining nuit.3
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer, including the janitor and the stockroom clerk, but ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, executives, and all other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
'Matter of Dothan Silk Hosiery Company , Inc., 70 N. L . R B. 1350, 1351 ; Matter of
Luscombc Airplane Corporation, 69 N. L R. B . 479, 483
3 Matter of Wilson Athletic Goods Manufacturing Company, 66 N L R . B 263, 265;
Matter of The Biglow Company, 65 N. L R. B. 769, 771 ; Matter of Food Machinery
Corporation, 64 N L R. B 1405, 1407, Matter of Brown Shoe Company, 57 N. L It. B
1687, 1689.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Arrow Armature Company, All-
ston, Massachusetts , an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the First Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55
and 203.56 , of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 4, aiiiong the employees in the unit found appropriate in
Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction , including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at
the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election , to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by International Union, United Automobile., Aircraft
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.