Wilbur B. Driver Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 171 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of WILBUR B. DRIVER COMPANY and CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. R-5540.-Decided July 9, 19443
Bailey c Schenck, by Mr. George B. Bailey, of Newark, N. J., for
the Company.
Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard and Mr. Leonard H. Goldsmith, of
Newark, N. J., for the Union.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Wilbur B.
Driver Company, Newark, New Jersey, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before James C. Paradise, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Newark, New Jersey, on June 15, 1943. The
Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner
reserved ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the petition on
the ground that the bargaining unit sought by the Union is inappro-
priate. For reasons stated in Section III, infra, the motion is hereby
granted. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties' were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Wilbur B. Driver Company, is a New Jersey corporation engaged
at three plants located in Newark, New Jersey, in the manufacture
of special alloy wire and strip. During the year 1942, the Company
used raw materials, consisting of steel, nickel, chromium, iron, man-
51 N. L R. B., No 39.
171
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganese, silica, beryllium and copper, valued in excess of $1,000,000, of
which approximately 75 percent was transported to the Company
from points outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period,
the Company manufactured finished products valued in excess of
$1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was sold and shipped
to purchasers outside the State of New Jersey. The Company does
not deny that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The sole issue in the instant case involves the appropriateness of
the bargaining unit, sought in the Union's petition, limited to the
production and maintenance employees at the Company's plant known
as plant #3. The Company's manufacturing operations are housed
in three buildings designated as plants nos. 1, 2, and 3. Originally the
only plant of the Company was the main plant or plant #1. How-
ever, in October 1942, because of the requirements of war production,
it became necessary for the Company to enlarge its plant. The Com-
pany attempted to construct an additional building on adjoining prop-
erty but could not do so because of restrictions on building materials.
It therefore acquired the nearest available building, which is now
known as plant #3. The distance between the main plant and plant
#3 is between ?^3 and 1/4 mile.
The record indicates that there is a close functional relationship
between the main plant and plant #3. All materials are received at
plant #1, where a central supply and stockroom is maintained. In the
manufacture of wire, which is the principal product of the Company,
the raw materials, after having been received at the main plant, are
there combined and reduced to the form of ingots. These ingots are
then put through various processes which produce wires or rods of
various sizes. Having reached this step the wires or rods are then
moved to plant #3, where they are put through additional wire draw-
ing processes for the purpose of reducing them to the necessary de-
gree of fineness. The wire is then returned to the main plant for
further drawing, if necessary, and for testing, spooling, and shipping.
At plant #2, which is located about 11/2 miles from the main plant,
enameling and other finishing operations are performed on the wire.
There is no wire manufacturing process which is performed only at
plant #3. On the contrary, the main plant and plant #3 comprise a
single integrated operation for the manufacture of wire; and various
processes performed at plant #3 are duplicated in the main plant.
WILBUR B. DRIVER - COMPANY 173
All maintenance employees of the Company report to and work out
of the main plant except a single maintenance employee who is sta-
tioned at plant #2. The maintenance employees are temporarily as-
signed to plants 2 and 3 from time to time. All hiring of new employ-
ees is done at a central employment office which is located between the
main plant and plant #3. The pay rolls for all plants are prepared
at the main plant. The Company maintains uniform employment
policies applicable to all its employees. There is one superintendent
who is in charge of all production operations of the Company. There
is also a superintendent under him who is in charge of plant #3, but
the latter's jurisdiction also covers certain departments in the mails
plant which are similar in function to certain production departments
in plant #3. It appears that there is as yet no interchange of pro-
duction workers between plant #3 and the other plants. However,
an executive of the Company testified that there may be some inter-
change in the future.
The Union argues that since it has organized only those employees
in the Company's plant #3 and since this plant is physically separated
from the other two plants of the Company, such employees may be
appropriately grouped in a separate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.' We find this contention to be without merit.2
Since it is apparent that the employees in the Company's plant #3
constitute an integral and indistinguishable part of the entire New
Jersey operation of the Company, we are of the opinion, and find that
the unit sought to be established by the Union is inappropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the Union is
inappropriate as stated in Section III, above, we find that no question
has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company
in an appropriate bargaining unit.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of employees of Wilbur B. Driver Company, Newark, New Jersey,
filed by Congress of Industrial Organizations, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
I The record indicates that the Union was unsuccessful in an attempt to organize the
employees at the main plant sometune before plant #3 began operation. The Union was
also unsuccessful in a later attempt to organize the main plant and plant #2
2 See Matter of Oneida, Ltd., 49 N L. It B 1178