J. Sklar Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of J. SKLAR MFG. Co." LOCAL 1225 OF THE UNITEDand
ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. R-1894.-Decided July 18,1940
Jurisdiction : surgical instruments manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification , of Representatives : existence of question:
refusal to accord recognition to union and request that certification be obtained ;
employees temporarily laid off eligible to vote, election necessary
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em-
ployees excluding administrative , office, and delivery employees , foremen,
factory supervisors , and salesmen
Rubinton di Coleman, by Mr. Samuel Rubinton, of Brooklyn, N. Y.,
and Mr. Edward J. Sovatkin, of Long Island City, N. Y., for the
Company.
Mr. Frank Scheiner and Mrs. Ruth, Roemer, of New York City, and
Mr. Nathan Lerner, of Brooklyn, N. Yfor the United.
Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 30 , 1940, Local 1225 of the United Electrical , Radio &
Machine Workers of America , C. I. 0., herein called the United, filed
with the Regional Director for the Second Region ( New York City)
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of J. Sklar Mfg. Co., Brooklyn,
New York ,2 herein called the Company , and requesting an investiga-
tion and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called
the Act.
On May 24, 1940 , the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board , acting pursuant to Section .9 (c) of the Act and Article III,
Section 3 , of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 2, as amended , ordered an investigation and authorized the
I Incorrectly referred to in the notice of hea, ing as "J Sklar Manufactuimg Co "
2In June 1940, pilor to the heaiing, the Company moved its plant to Long bland
City, N. F -
25 N L R B, No. 72.
614
J. SKLAR MFG. CO. 615
Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice.
On June 1, 1940 , the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were served upon the Company and the United.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on June 14, 1940, at New York
City, before Daniel R. Dimick, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. The Company and the United were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During
the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings
on motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Company and the United filed briefs with the Board.
At the request of the Company oral argument was scheduled to be
held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on July 9, 1940. Having
been notified by the Company and the United that they did not intend
to appear at the hearing set for oral argument, the Board cancelled
the said hearing.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
J. Sklar Mfg. Co., a New York corporation, is engaged at its plant
in Long Island City, New York, in the manufacture and sale of
surgical instruments and related products. Prior to June 1, 1940, the
Company's plant was located in Brooklyn, New York. During 1939
the Company purchased raw materials, consisting principally of steel,
alloys, bronze, brass, and oil, valued at approximately $100,000, of
which approximately 60 per cent were shipped to the Company's
plant from points outside the State of New York. During the same
period the Company sold finished products valued at approximately
$400,000, of which approximately 75 per cent were shipped to destina-
tions outside the State of New York. The Company normally employs
approximately 250 persons excluding supervisory and clerical
employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 1225, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations , admitting to membership employees of the Company.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
By letter dated April 26, 1940, the United requested the Company
to bargain with it as the exclusive representative of the Company's
employees. The Company refused to bargain unless the Board should
first certify the United as the statutory representative of the employees.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described
in Section I above, has a close, intimate , and substantial relation to
trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and tends to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and mainte-
nance employees of the Company, excluding administrative, office,
and delivery employees, foremen, factory supervisors, and salesmen,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full
benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining
and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
In support of its claim of majority representation among the
employees in an appropriate unit, the United submitted 157 member-
ship application cards to the Regional Director. The latter reported
in a written statement introduced in evidence that- the signatures on
116 of such cards appear to be genuine original signatures of persons
whose names are on the Company's pay roll of June 14, 1940. At
the hearing the Company and the United requested that an election
be held. We find that the question which has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company can best be resolved
by an election by secret ballot.
At the hearing a controversy arose concerning the pay roll to be
used to determine eligibility to vote in the election. The United
contended that the pay-roll period immediately preceding April 30,
1940, the date of the filing of the petition, should govern eligibility.
The Company asserted that only those employees on the pay roll at
J. SKLAR MFG. CO. 617
the time of the election should be eligible to vote. The record shows
that all employees working on April 30, except one or two who were
subsequently laid off because of the removal of the plant from Brook-
lyn to Long Island, were employed by the Company at the time of
hearing. The Company stated that all of its old employees not work-
ing at time of the hearing would be reinstated as soon as conditions
permitted. We find that such employees have been temporarily laid
.off. We shall direct that the employees of the Company eligible to
vote in the election shall be those employees in the appropriate unit
who were employed during the pay-roll period last preceding the
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation,
and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off,
but excluding those who have since quit or been discharged for cause.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of J. Sklar Mfg. Co., Long Island City, New
York, -Within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Company,
excluding administrative, office, and delivery employees, foremen,
factory supervisors, and salesmen, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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 Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representation for the purposes of collective bargaining
with J. Sklar Mfg. Co., Long Island City, New York, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Election under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among all production and maintenance employees of J. Sklar
Mfg. Co. who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period last preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including
employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then or have
since been temporarily laid off, but excluding administrative , office,
and delivery employees , foremen, factory supervisors , salesmen, and
any employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local 1225,,
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., for
the purpose of collective bargaining.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.