Edwin L. Wiegand Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 315 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of EDWIN L. WVIEGAND COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
In- the Matter Of OREFRACTION, INC. and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO &
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Cases Nos. R-4238 and R-49,39, respectively. -Decided September 22,
194.2
Jurisdiction : electrical equipment manufacturing industry; ore processing in-
dustry.
investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of questions: stipu-
lation as to ; Companies' request that employees in armed forces be permitted
to vote by mail, dented; elections necessary '
Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : (1) Wiegand's production and
maintenance employees, excluding supervisory, office and clerical employees,
watchmen, and guards; (2) Orefraction's production and maintenance em-
ployees,-excluding-supervisory and clerical employees.
Mr. Norbert F. Stanny, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for Wiegand and Ore-
fraction. ••
Mr. Fred Haug, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Union.
Mr. Milton E. Harris, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF TILE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the
Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of Edwin L. Wiegand Com-
pany,' herein called Wiegand, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and upon
a similar petition filed by the Union relating to the employees of
Orefraction, Inc., herein,called Orefraction, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
Bearing upon due notice before S. Craig Carnes, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 1,
1942. Wiegand, Orefraction, 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.
1 The name was so amended at the hearing.
44 N. L. R. B., No. 56.
315
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF WIEGAND AND OREFRACTION
Edwin L. Wiegand Company is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged
in the manufacture of electrical heating elements and units and re-
lated products in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The value of the raw
materials purchased by Wiegand in 1941 was in excess of $1,000,000,
more than 50 percent of which came from points located outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The value of the finished products
sold by Wiegand in 1941 was in excess of $1,000,000, more than 50
percent of which was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. It,was,•stipulated that the foregoing figures are "rep-
resentative" for the first 7 months of 1942.
Orefraction, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the sep-
arating, buying, and selling of ores and minerals in'Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania. The value of the ores and minerals purchased by Orefraction
in 1941 was in excess of $100,000; more than 90 percent of which origi-
nated outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The value of the
finished products and services sold by Orefraction in 1941 was in excess
of $100,000, more than 75 percent of which went into products which
were shipped by Orefraction or its customers to points outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It was stipulated that the fore-
going figures are "representative" for the first 7 months of 1942.
Wiegand and Orefraction concede that they are engaged in com-
merce, within the meaning of the Act. '
i
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
It admits to membership employees of Wiegand and Orefraction.
III. TIIE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Wiegand and Orefraction stipulated at the hearing that each of them
refused to bargain with the Union and would continue their refusals
until the Union was certified by the Board. Statements of the Re-
gional Director introduced into evidence at the hearing show that
the Union represents a substantial number of employees in each of the
units hereinafter found appropriate.'
2 The Regional Director reported that the Union had submitted 228 authorization cards,
207 of which bore the apparently genuine original signatures of persons on Wiegand's
EDWIN L. WIEGAND COMPANY 317
We' find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Wiegand and Orefraction, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
As to Wiegand, the Union claims and Wiegand admits that the
appropriate unit consists of all the production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding supervisory, office, and clerical employees, and also
excluding watchmen and guards.3 We find that all Wiegand's pro-
duction and maintenance employees, excluding supervisory, office, and
clerical employees, and also excluding watchmen and guards, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
As to Orefraction, the Union claims and Orefraction admits that
the appropriate unit consists of all the production and maintenance
employees, excluding supervisory and clerical employees. We find
that all Orefraction's production and maintenance employees, ex-
cluding, supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, , within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen can best be resolved by means of elections by secret ballot.
Wiegand and Orefraction requested that all employees within the
respective units who were in the armed forces of the United States
be permitted to vote by mail, since such employees have "a vital in-
terest in the results of any election which might be directed by the
Board,"' and in further consideration of the law permitting men
in the,,, aimed seryices to vote by. mail in Federal political, elections.
The Union opposed this request, particularly because of "a war situ-
ation" and "a number of crises which resulted in situations that
almost went out of control."
We have previously had occasion to consider a request such as is
here presented to us by Wiegand and Orefraction, and have deter-
mined that, in view of almost a year of administrative experience in
pay roll of July 17, 1942, and that there were 301 employees within the unit on this
pay roll.
The Regional Director further reported that the Union had submitted 9 authorization
cards , 7 of which bore the apparently genuine original signatures of persons on Orefraction's
pay roll of July 17, 1942 , and that there were 10 employees within the unit on this pay roll.
8In its petition the Union claimed a somewhat different unit . At the hearing it moved
to amend the unit as stated above . Wiegand made no objections to the proposed amend-
ment. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion for the Board . The motion
is hereby granted.
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
permitting such mail balloting, the policies and purposes of the Act
would be best effectuated by permitting balloting only in, person.'
Accordingly, the requests are hereby denied.
We find that the employees of Wiegand and Orefraction' eligible
to vote in the respective elections shall be those within the respective
appropriate units who were employed during the respective pay-roll
periods immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.6
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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 Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation- ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with'Edwin L, Wiegand Company o;nd" Orefraction, Inc., respectively,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 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
Director for the Sixth Region, acting in this' matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 9,
of said Rules and Regulations,. among . the employees in the respective
units 'found appropriate in Section IV, above, who-were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the, date of this
Direction, including any such, employees who did not ,work during
such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, or in .the
active military' service or training of the United; States,' or, tempo-
rarily, laid off, but excluding any who have since, quit or been. dis-
charged for cause, to determine; whether or not they desire-to be,rep-
resented by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America
(C. I. 0.).
MR. War. M. LEIsEasoN took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.
4Matter of Wilson & Co ., Inc and Packinghouse Woibe,s Organizing Committee, Local
No. 20, affiliated with the C I. 0., 37 N. L It.'B 944; Matter of J. Greenebaum Tanning
Co., and International Fur if Leather, Workers Union, Local No. 260 (CIO),, 42 N. L. R. , B.
626.
The Union contended that the pay-roll period of July 17, 1942, should be used to
determine eligibility to Note,,on the ground that the parties had agreed on , that pay-roll
period in a so-called consent -election agreement which for other reasons was not executed.
The company agreed at the hearing that the Board 's customary practice should be, fol-
lowed We find the Union's contention without merit Matter of Wilson if Co., Inc. and
Pachsnghouse Workers Organizing Committee, Local No . 20, affiliated with the C. I. 0.,
37 N. L . R. B. 944. •