L. & S. Machine Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 266 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
L. & S. Machine Company, Inc. and United Electrical , Radio &
Machine Workers of America (UE), Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-
2118. August-1, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Joseph M.
Maurizi, 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer contests the Board's jurisdiction in this matter.
L. & S. Machine Company, Inc., the Employer herein, is a Pennsyl-
vania corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine
parts at Latrobe, Pennsylvania. The parts are made from special
alloys and are incorporated into machine prototypes used solely in
atomic and nuclear research for experimental purposes, and are usually
tested to destruction. Its sales for the year 1957 were in excess of
$100,000 to atomic powerplants, located in Pennsylvania, of the
Atomic Energy Division of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
The Westinghouse Electric Corporation ships products and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly, to plants outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. No shipments outside the Commonwealth
are made by the Atomic Energy Division of Westinghouse.
The Employer contends that since the Division to which its sales are
made operates as a separate and independent entity, is managed and
controlled by individuals whose sole concern is this Division , has its
own separate personnel, for most of whom security clearances are nec-
essary, the Division constitutes a unitary enterprise and is not engaged
in interstate commerce. We find no merit in this contention. As the
Westinghouse Electric Corporation meets the jurisdictional tests
established by the Board,' we shall assert jurisdiction. 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
herein.
2. The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act because it is a - Communist-
dominated organization. In support of this contention, the Employer
made an offer of proof which was properly rejected by the hearing
officer.2
i Whippany Motor Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 52; Hoosier Fence Co, Inc., 115 NLRB 51.
Cf. Brooks Wood Products, 107 NLRB 237, and Brown Marine Drilling Company, 117
NLRB 331.
2 General Furniture Corporation, 109 NLRB 479, and cases cited therein Precision
Scientific Company, 117 NLRB 476.
121 NLRB No. 41.
L. & S. MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 267
. The record shows that the Petitioner is an organization which.
organizes employees with the intention of negotiating collective-bar-
gaining contracts to establish rates of pay, wages, and conditions of
employment. Accordingly, we find the Petitioner is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act and that it claims
to represent the 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 Employer agree that a production and
maintenance unit is appropriate. They disagree, however, on the
voting eligibility of certain employees who were laid off between April
21 and May 2, 1958. These employees were advised that the layoff
was occasioned by lack of work, and that the Company did not know
how long the layoff would be.
The Employer urges that the laid-off employees are ineligible to
-vote because there is no reasonable expectancy of their recall within
the foreseeable future, stating that recall would depend upon an im-
provement in business conditions and that present orders do not
justify such an expectancy. The parties stipulated that after layoffs
in the past, employees were recalled within a few days. At the time
of the present layoff, the second shift was canceled, and shortly there-
after was returned to operation because of the urgency of shipment
which was increased, and was not due to increased orders. ' No new
employees were hired. When the Petitioner filed its brief on June 6,
1958, it alleged that five of the laid-off employees had been recalled
to work.
As the record fails to show that there is any definite prospect of
business conditions warranting the recall of the remaining laid-off
employees, thus providing a reasonable expectancy of their employ-
ment in the near future, we find the laid-off employees have no rea-
sonable expectancy of returning to work within the foreseeable future.3
Accordingly, we find they are ineligible to vote in the election directed
herein.
The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose-of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant
located at Latrobe, Pennsylvania, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
a Brown-Foreman Distillers Corporation , 118 NLRB 454 ; Shaw-Randall Company,
Inc., 116 NLRB 444; Peninsular Metal Products Corporation , 116 NLRB 452.
4 At the hearing, the parties agreed that Merel Baird was a part-time employee ineli-
gible to vote, and that John Rosky and Grover Achtzler were not employees of the
Employer.