Martinsville Novelty Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 483 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of MARTINSVILLE NOVELTY CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 5-R-0802.-Decided April 22,1944'
Mr. H. N. Joyce, of Martinsville , Va., for the Employer.
Mr. Mike Ross, of Martinsville , Va., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
on November 27, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among the em-
ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine
whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that, of the approximately 101 eligible
voters, 71 cast votes for, and 22 against, the Petitioner; in addition,
3 ballots were challenged and 1 was void.
Thereafter, hearing in the case was held at Martinsville, Virginia,
on February 18, 1947, before Charles B. Slaughter, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Martinsville Novelty Corporation, a Virginia corporation, is en-
gaged in the manufacture of occasional and novelty furniture. Dur-
ing the year 1946, it purchased materials valued in excess of $100,000
from sources outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. During the
same period, its sales to points outside the Commonwealth were valued
in excess of $100,000.
The Employer admits for the purposes of this proceeding only, and
we find, that it is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
73 N. L R. B, No 96. 483
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
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
The parties agree that the appropriate unit should include all em-
ployees of the Employer's Martinsville, Virginia, plant, excluding
sales, professional, office and clerical employees, as well as executives
and other supervisory personnel. The parties are in dispute, however,
with respect to three individuals designated by the Employer as watch-
men-firemen.' The Petitioner would include them within the appro-
priate unit, whereas the Employer would exclude them.
The daily duties of these watchmen-firemen consist primarily of
making the rounds of the Employer's premises to protect it against
fire, theft, and trespass. In addition, they fire the boilers. They are
neither'uniformed, deputized, nor armed. They were included within
the scope of the collective bargaining contract in effect between the
Petitioner and the Employer from October 1945 to October 1946.
Moreover, it does not appear that their functions are monitorial with
respect to other employees. We shall, therefore, include the watch-
men-firemen within the appropriate unit.2
We find that all employees of the Employer at its Martinsville,
Virginia, plant, including watchmen-firemen; but excluding sales, pro-
fessional, 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.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The ballots of Hughes Clark and Tom Davis, watchmen-firemen,
were challenged on the ground that their inclusion in the appropriate
1 Hughes Clark, Tom Davis , and John Folden.
2 Matter o f Taylor Fibre Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 247.
MARTINSVILLE NOVELTY CORPORATION 485
unit was open to question. As we have determined in Section IV,
above, to include watchmen-firemen, the challenges to the ballots of
Hughes Clark and Tom Davis are hereby overruled. But we deem it
unnecessary to direct the opening and counting of these ballots or to
pass upon the validity of the third challenged ballot, cast by Golden
Watkins,,' because it is clear that the Petitioner has received a majority
of all votes cast, including the three challenged ballots. Therefore,
we shall now certify the Petitioner as the bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Section 203.54, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Furniture Workers of America
(CIO) has been designated and selected by a majority of all em-
ployees of Martinsville Novelty Corporation at its Martinsville, Vir-
ginia, plant, including watchmen-firemen, but excluding sales, profes-
sional, office and clerical employees, executives, and all other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
3 Watkins ' ballot was challenged on the ground that his name did not appear on the
pay roll used to determine voting eligibility