Lalance & Grosjean Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 130 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of LALANCE & GROSJEAN MANUFACTURING Co. and
UNITED MECHANICS LOCAL 150, CIO
Case No. 2-R-5534.-Decided August 3, 1945
Spiro, Felstiner & Prager, by Mr. William, Felstiner, of New York
City, for the Company.
Witt cC Cammer, by Mr. Abraham Leviv, of New York City, for the
Union.
Miss Ruth Rusch, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATErIEN2 or THE CASE
Upon a second amended petition duly filed by United Mechanics
Local 150, CIO, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Lalance & Grosjean Manufacturing Co., Woodhaven,
New York, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Richard J. Hickey, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at New
York City, on May 18, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared
and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Lalance & Grosjean Manufacturing Co. is a New York Corpora-
tion with its principal office and factory located in Woodhaven, Long
' we find no merit in the Company's contention in its brief that the Trial Examiner
limited its cross examination of the Union's only witness in such a way as to amount to
a denial of due process.
03 N. L R B, No 18.
130
LALANCE & GROSJEAN MANUFACTURING Co. 131
Island, New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture, fabrica-
tion, distribution, and sale of kitchenware, including galley equipment
and field range equipment. Duffing the year ending April 30, 1945,
the Company purchased raw materials, consisting principally of
aluminum sheets and amounting to more than $250,000 in value, all of
which came from sources outside the State of New York. In the
same period, it sold finished products valued at more than $250,000,
of which approximately 75 percent was shipped to points outside the
State.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Mechanics Local 150, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Company..
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
By letter dated March 21, 1945, the Union requested recognition of
the Company as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain
of its employees. The Company refused to grant such recognition
until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
% The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted membership cards, of which 195
bore the names of persons listed on the Company ' s pay roll, containing the names of 264
employees in the appropriate unit , that all these cards were undated , and that the Union's
business manager submitted an affidavit stating that all membership cards were obtained
in March and April 1945
The Company contends, in effect, that in determining the Union's representative showing,
the Board should consider the number of its employees in the armed services , and that the
Field Examiner was in error in not doing so We find that the Field Examiner properly
excluded from consideration the number of employees in the armed services in accordance
with our prior holdings that such employees are not to be added to the number of employees
working in the plant for the purposes of evaluating the showing of interest. Moreover,
even if the excluded employees were counted, the Union's showing would remain substantial
See Matter of Tiico Products Corporation, 57 N L. R. B. 1446 , Matter of Lunwaus Cotton
Gin Company, 56 N L. R B 385
At the hearing, and in its brief, the Company objected to the Report on Investigation of
Interest of Contending Labor Organizations being received in evidence on the afore-
mentioned ground and for the further reasons that (1) there was no comparison of.the
signatures on the membership cards with the signatures of the employees on the Company's
pay roll records and the Field Examiner declined to make such a comparison , ( 2) the card$
were checked with a list of employees and not with a pay roll as was stated in the report,
(3) the membership cards were not introduced at the hearing so that they could be in-
spected and so that the Field Examiner could be examined thereon, (4) the report referred
to the affidavit of an unnamed business manager of the Union as establishing the time when
the tmdated membership cards were obtained we find these objections to be without merit
We have heretofore stated that the submission of cards is required simply to provide h
reasonable safeguard against the indiscriminate institution of representation proceedings
by labor organizations which might have little or no membership in'the unit claimed to be
662514-46-vol 63-10 °
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find , in substantial accordance with the agreement of the parties,
that all the production and maintenance employees 3 of the Com-
pany at its Woodhaven , Long Island, New York,, plant , including
watchmen , but excluding clerical employees and all supervisory em-
ployees 4 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
At the hearing, the Union took the position that March 30, 1945,
should be used as the eligibility date in any election which the Board
may direct since that is the date, Qn which the original petition was
forwarded to the Board. The Company requested that the usual pay-
roll date be used. Under the circumstances, we perceive no reason
for deviating from our usual practice in selecting a date for the pur-
poses of eligibility and we shall direct that the question concerning
representation which has arisen be resolved by, an election by secret
ballot among the employees in the appropriate unit who were em-
ployed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of
the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and addi-
tions set forth in the Direction .5
The Company requests that employees who are now serving in the
armed forces of the United States be permitted to vote by mail or that,
in the alternative, the election be postponed, until such time as those
employees who will be' discharged from the service by reason of the
appropriate and that the appraisal of the Union's evidence is discretionary with the Board.
In our opinion , this safeguard is adequately provided when a statement of showing is made
on the basis of a check of the names on the cards with the names on a pay-roll list or other
accurate list of company employees without making a comparison of signatures Moreover,
we have also held that the Company is not prejudiced by not being permitted to question
the evidential showing or the Board agent himself as to his statement thereon. See
Matter of Sunset Motor Lines, 59 N. L. R. B. 1434 ; Matter of Tampa Shipbuilding Com-
pany, Incorporated, 62 N. L R. B. 954.
8 Earl E. Lovegood, who is a porter working 20 hours a week for the Company, is included
in the unit by stipulation of the parties.
° , The Union contends that John Santapolo who works in the grinding department is a
supervisor and should therefore be excluded from the unit, while the Company urges his
inclusion . However , no evidence was adduced with respect to such supervisory status and
we shall make no determination with respect to his inclusion or exclusion at this time. If
this employee possesses supervisory powers within the meaning of our usual definition, he
is to be excluded ; otherwise , he is to be included . See Matter of Joseph Bancroft d Sons
Company, 60 N. L. R. B. 1053.
5 The Union 's request that it be designated on the ballot as United Mechanics Local 150,
IFLWU-CIO , is hereby referred to the Regional Director for determination.
LALANCE & GROSJEAN MANUFACTURING CO. 133
termination of the war in Europe, have returned to their employment.
lit accordance with our usual policy, we shall deny the Company's re-
quest and -direct that an election be conducted as early as possible,
but not later than 30 days from the date of this direction and that only
those employees on military leave who present themselves in person
at the polls shall be permitted to vote. In this manner, we shall
afford those presently employed the right to choose a collective bar-
gaining representative and the right to bargin collectively under the
Act. However, as we stated in prior cases involving this issue, a new
petition for the investigation and certification of a bargaining agent
may be filed with the Board when it is demonstrated that servicemen
have returned in sufficient numbers so that they comprise a substan-
tial percentage of the employees in an appropriate unit in which we
have certified a collective bargaining representative. Thus there
will be afforded to employees in the armed forces who were unable
to cast a vote an opportunity to affirm or change the bargaining agent
selected in their absence.6
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National La-
bor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DmEcTrn that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Lalance & Gros-
jean Manufacturing Co., Woodhaven, 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, under the direction and su-
pervision 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, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
did not work during the said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
the election, to determine whether or. not they desire, to be 'represented
by United Mechanics Local 150, CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
6 See Matter of Mine Safety Appliances Co., 55 N. L. R. B. 1190.