Dominant, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 85 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of DO-311NANT, INc., EMPLOYER and YORKERS' LOCAL -OF
DOMINANT, INC., PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3616.-Decided June 1^?, 1947
Mr. Max Goldliaber, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the Employer.
Mr. Heriri G. Pro'ulx, of Attleboro. Mass., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Paul H. Ner'iey, of Attleboro, Mass., for the CIO.
Mr. Roy 0 Goldin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECT ION
Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held
at Providence, Rhode Island, on April 22, 1947, before Sani G. Zack,
hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FAC'r
1. 'rlTi: BUSINESS OF 'ri-n: EMPLOYER
Dominant., Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of novelty jewelry at its Attleboro, Massachusetts,
plant. During the 12 months preceding the hearing, the Employer
purchased raw materials for this plant, valued in excess of $100,000,
of which 25 percent represented shipments from sources outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During the same period, the Em-
ployer distributed finished products from this plant valued in excess
of $450,000, of which from 90 to 95 percent represented shipments to
points outside the Commonwealth.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
I Although duly sel ved with notice, the CIO did not appear until after the hearing had
started. At that time , the hearing officer apprised the CIO 's representative of the nature
and extent of the evidence presented before his arrival.
74 N. L.R.B,No.21. 85
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to rep-
resent employees of the Employer.'
Playthings, Jewelry and Novelty Workers International Union,
heiein called the CIO, is a labor organization affiliated with the Coll-
gress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing, the Employer and the Petitioner agreed that all pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer, excluding office
and clerical employees, constitute an appropriate unit. The CIO took
no position with respect to the unit.'
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the Petitioner and
Employer and based on the entire record, that all production and main-
tenance employees of the Employer at the Attleboro, Massachusetts,
plant of the Employer, excluding office and clerical employees, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 4
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Dominant, Inc., Attleboro, Mas-
2At the hearing , the CIO asserted ,• in effect , that the Petitioner is a company -dominated
union and not a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act The
healing officer properly refused to permit the introduction of evidence on this matter In
the absence of special circumstances , not here present , the Board customarily does not
receive evidence of unfair labor practice charges at representation hearings See Matter
of Dayton, Price d Company , Ltd, and Muller d Phipps ( Asia), Ltd., 73 N I, It. B 149,
and Matter of Grinnel Company of the Paccfic, 71 N L R B 1370.
2 Our record discloses , however , that in a prior petition filed by the CIO , which was dis-
missed administratively , before the date of the hearing in the instant case , the CTO requested
a unit similar to that sought herein
4 Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
DOMINANT, INC. 87
sachusetts, 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 Direc-
tor 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 Regulations-Series 4,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
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 they desire to be represented by Work-
ers' Local of Dominant, Inc., or by Playthings, Jewelry and Novelty
Workers International Union, CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
CnAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.