Savill Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 14 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SAVILL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 1, A. F. of L., PETITIONER
In the Matter Of SAVILL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 4-R-2515 and 4-84559, respectively.Decided June
10, 1947
Mr. Yale L. Schekter , of Philadelphia , Pa., for the Employer.
Messrs. Louis H. Wilderman and William B. Hayes, of Philadel-
phia, Pa., for the A. F. Of L.
Messrs . Saul C. Waldbaum and Philip Saba, of Philadelphia, Pa.,
for the CIO.
Miss Frances Steyer , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTIONS OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed, hearing in these consolidated
cases was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on April 2, 1947, before
Helen F. Humphrey, 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 FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Savill Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its main office
and principal plant at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the
manufacture of plumbing supplies. During the year 1946, the Em-
ployer used raw materials, consisting of brass ingots, nickel plating and
allied materials, and chemicals, valued at more than $60,000, ap-
proximately 10 percent of which was shipped from points outside
Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer manufactured
74 N. L. R. B., No. 4.
14
SAVILL COMPANY 15
finished products valued at more than $200,000, approximately 2 per-
cent of which was shipped to points outside Pennsylvania.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
withal the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGAN IZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner in Case No. 4-R-2515, herein called the A. F. of L., is'
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
The Petitioner in Case No. 4-R-2559, herein called the CIO, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize either the A. F. of L. or the CIO
as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Em-
ployer unless 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 DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The A. F. of L. alleges that all foundry employees at the Employer's
plant, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, constitute an ap-
propriate bargaining unit. The CIO and the Employer contend that
only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. The Employer would include,
and both the A. F. of L. and CIO would exclude; the leader of the
foundry and the leader of the machine shop.
The Employer is ,engaged in manufacturing plumbing supplies.
The Employer's plant is a single building with a foundry in the base-
ment; stockroom and warehouse on the first floor; machine shop, grind-
ing and polishing room, and a plating room on the second floor; and
an assembly-room on the third floor. There are 11 employees in the
foundry, including the foundry leader, 3 molders, 4 core makers, and
3 laborers. The foundry laborers regularly work in parts of the plant
other than the foundry for the first hour and a half of each working
day, and at other times when there is no work for them in the foundry.
Occasionally, other foundry employees are assigned out of the foundry
to perform emergency operations in the plant, such as the moving of
heavy machinery in the machine shop. Although all the foundry em-
ployees work the same hours and enjoy the same vacation benefits as
the otlier employees in the plant, all except laborers are skilled work-
755420-48-vol 74 3
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ers who have served an apprenticeship in their craft and receive a
higher rate of pay than other employees. Thus, it seems clear that the
foundry employees could function either as a separate unit or in a
single unit together with the other plant employees.' There is no
history of collective bargaining at the plant. Under these circum-
stances, we shall make no present determination as to whether the
foundry workers should constitute a separate unit or be a part of a
plant-wide unit at an election. We shall conduct separate elections
among foundry employees and among other plant employees and
predicate, in part, upon the results of the elections, the scope of the
unit or units appropriate for bargaining purposes.
The leader of the foundry and the leader of the machine shop spend
approximately 75 percent of their time in manual labor, and, while
they direct the flow of work through their respective departments,
there is no evidence in the record that they have supervisory authority
within the Board's usual definition. We shall include them in the
appropriate voting groups.
In accordance with the foregoing, we shall direct that elections be
held in the following groups:
(1) All production and maintenance employees, including the ma-
chine shop leader, but excluding foundry employees, clerical em-
ployees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
Df employees, or effectively recommend such action, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by the CIO; and
(2) All foundry employees, including the foundry leader, to de-
termine whether they desire to be represented by the A. F. of L., by
the CIO, or by neither.
If a majority of the foundry employees select the A. F. of L. as their
bargaining representative, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to bargain as a separate craft unit; if 'a majority, however, se-
lect the CIO, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to bar-
gain as part of a plant-wide unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 2
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Savill Company, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, separate elections 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
I Matter of Food Machinery Corporation, 72 N L R B 483
2 Any participant in the elections directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot
SAVILL COMPANY 17
Director for the Fourth 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, among the employees in the groups described below
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work dur-
ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but exclud-
ing those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause,
and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
elections :
(1) Among employees in the plant group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, CIO; and
(2) Among employees in the foundry in the groups described in
Section IV, above, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North
America, Local No. 1, A. F. of L., or United Electrical , Radio & Ma-
chine Workers of America, CIO, for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.