Rembrandt Lamp Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 945 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of REMBRANDT LAMP CORPORATION and METAL POLISH-
ERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
No. 6, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF LABOR 1
Case No. R-13-56.-Decided July 24, 1939
Lanip Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives : petition
for, dismissed , where no question concerning the representation of employees in
a unit which could be found appropriate had arisen ; unit sought in petition com-
posed of polishers and buffers , found not to be appropriate : membership in
union ; history of collective bargaining with employer included platers and
helpera which petitioning union wishes to exclude from unit ; functional coher-
ence ; similarity of wages, hours , and working conditions.
11r. Hyman A. Schulson, for the Board.
Mr. Otto A. Jaburek, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. William E. Rodriguez, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Theodore W. Kheel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF IHE CASE
On January 27, 1939, Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers
International Union, Local Union No. 6, Chicago, Illinois, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union,
filed with the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago,
Illinois) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Rembrandt
Lamp Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Company,
and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On March 28, 1939, 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 1, as amended, or-
dered all investigation and authorized the Regional Director to
i Correctly designated as "Local Union No 6 "
13 N. L. R. B, No. 98.
945
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD '
conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice.
On March 30,1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon the
Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on April 17, 1939,
at Chicago, Illinois, before P. H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the Union
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 on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions and on 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.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is an Illinois corporation. At its plant in Chicago,
Illinois, it makes portable lamps and shades. In 1938, it bought raw
materials valued at $400,000, of.which 70 per cent came from outside
the State or Illinois. During the same time, it sold finished products
valued at $1,000,000, of which 80 per cent were shipped outside the
State of Illinois. For the sale of its products, the Company has
showrooms in New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to its membership
all employees of the Company in the metal polishing , buffing, and
plating departments except "absolute foremen," 2 superintendents,
and managers.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
As appears from its name, the Union is a labor organization of
metal polishers, buffers, platers, and helpers. But in this case, it
seeks a unit composed only of polishers and buffers. Opposed to
the Union's claim, the Company would include the platers and
helpers. There are about 24 polishers and buffers, and about 2:S
platers and helpers, in the Company's employ. The business agent
of the Union argued that the platers and helpers should be excluded,
2 An "absolute foreman" Is defined by the International and Local Laws governing the
Union as one who has "full power to hire and discharge and regulate wages."
11EMBRANDT LAMP CORPORATION 947
"Primarily, because they are not members of our organization and,
secondly, because it is a separate and distinct trade."
By its own admissions, the Union attached significance only to
the first reason advanced in favor of a unit of polishers and buffers.
Through its business agent, it conceded that a permanent separation
was not contemplated. If and when it organized the platers and
helpers, it would desire that the unit be expanded to include them.
The business agent was asked, "But you clearly do not give up your
jurisdiction as to the platers and platers' helpers if in the future
you organize them?" and replied, "No, sir." But he explained that
pending organization, the Union wants to bargain for the polishers
and buffers, "Because we have found in many cases where an em-
ployer don't choose to go along with a labor union, and if you wait
too long there is a certain amount of what you might term discrim-
ination shown."
It is therefore apparent that the nature of the claimed unit sterns
from the Union's desire to bargain at the present time for those
employees whom they have organized. While there is a distinction
in function between the platers and helpers on the one hand and the
polishers and buffers on the other, in light of the nature of their
work and the other circumstances of this case, that distinction would
not of itself justify a unit separation. The polishers, buffers, platers,
and helpers of the Company all work on the sixth floor of the factory,
under a common foreman, during the same hours, and for approxi-
mately the same wages. Because of the exigencies of their work,
these employees are brought into close proximity with each other.
While the processes vary with the metal and finish desired, the work
of polishing, buffing, and plating proceeds generally as follows :
Metal castings of pig iron, brass, and white metal are first polished
and then buffed to remove the scratches left by the abrasive used in
polishing. They are then given to the platers who apply either a
copper or brass finish and return the metal castings to the buffers for
"color buffing." This process readies the metal for silver, cadmium,
bronze, etc., plating. As part of this latter process, the platers will
buff the metal on a lathe smaller in size than the lathe used by the
regular buffers. The metal castings are then ready to be assembled,
painted, or lacquered.
While the Union has had members among employees of the Com-
pany for many years, it has not had an extensive history of labor
relations with the Company. But the practices of employee organiza=
tion and collective bargaining," as revealed by the record, do not point
8 The evidence with respect to the practices of employee organization and collective
bargaining within the industry is not clear nor convincing The business agent of the
Union alleged, "to the best of my knowledge," that the Union had a verbal agreement
with the Art Lamp Company which covered only polishers and buffers although th.ait
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the appropriateness of a unit of polishers and buffers alone. In
1928 the Union concluded a contract with the Company which covered
one plater and one helper in addition to the polishers and buffers.4
This contract is nominally in effect at the present time although it
appears to have fallen into disuse.5 While the contract has not been
given a prominent place in the relations of the Company with the
Union, these parties have negotiated with each other from time to tirne
since 1928. It was the Company's contention that it had dealt with
the Union for the platers and helpers as well as the polishers and
buffers, although the record is not clear on the extent of these negotia-
tions since 1928.
From all of the facts in this case, we are unable to conclude that a
unit of polishers and buffers is appropriate. Here we have a union
which is traditionally composed of polishers, buffers, platers, and
helpers. By function and association they belong together. The
contract of 1928 included a plater and helper as well as the polishers
and buffers. And, in fact, the Union itself recognizes the appro-
priateness of the larger unit by averring that it intends to organize
the platers and helpers and include them when organized. Under
the circumstances, we are not persuaded by the Union's argument.
Since we do not find an appropriate unit within the scope of the peti-
tion, this proceeding will be dismissed."
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as stated in Section III, we are unable to find an appropriate
unit within the scope of that alleged in the petition filed in this case,
we must find that no question has been raised concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Company in an appropriate bargain-
ing unit.
Company did employ platers . He did not know whether any platers had joined the
Union He also maintained that only one shop in Chicago, which is the vicinity of
many lamp companies , employed union platers . On the other hand , the Union introduced
into evidence a contract it had executed with the Expert Lamp Manufacturing Company
in 1931 which covered polishers and buffers and also provided that the company "shall
employ one plater in its Plating Room, who shall be a member of the second party's
[The Union] organization The business manager also admitted that the Union.11
had a contract with the Automatic Electric Company which included platers as well as
polishers and buffers. In negotiations with the Stiffel Lamp Company, the Union rep-
resented two platers , the polishers and buffers , but not the platers' helpers. On the
whole, this evidence is incomplete and insubstantial . It would be difficult to draw any
conclusions therefrom as to the nature of employee organization and collective bargaining
within the industry.
4 The record does not indicate whether the Company was employing more than one
plater and helper at that time.
5 It continued by virtue of a yearly renewable clause but the superintendent of the
Company, in charge of labor relations since 1930 , testified that he did not know of
the contract 's existence
6 See Matter of The Novelty Steam Boiler Works and Local 101, Welders, Burners, Appren-
tices, A F of L, 7 N. L. R. B 969.
REMBRANDT LAMP CORPORATION 949
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLusION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of
Rembrandt Lamp Corporation in a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining has arisen within the meaning of Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of
law the National Labor Relations Board, acting pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and Article III, Section
8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
2, hereby dismisses the petition for investigation and certification filed
by Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union,
Local Union No. 6, Chicago, Illinois, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor.
MR . EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting :
I think the Union's contention for a unit of polishers and buffers
should be upheld. In so deciding, there is no implication that I
would permit a union to make an arbitrary division of a craft into
its organized and unorganized parts. The work of the platers and
helpers is sufficiently dissimilar from the work of the polishers and
buffers to allow the Board to separate the two groups if such a
separation is justified by the circumstances of the case. The evidence
presented herein as to a history of collective bargaining covering the
platers and helpers is not important. The contract entered into in
1928, and since apparently disregarded for all practical purposes,
is too remote to serve as a reliable, guide to a present determination
of an appropriate unit. Although the practices of employee organi-
zation and collective bargaining within the industry are not fully
set forth in the record, it does appear that the Union, has bargained
with other companies for polishers and buffers to the exclusion of
platers and helpers.
The most important considerations, to my mind, are the facts that
the platers and helpers are not now organized, and that no other
union is now seeking to bargain for any of the employees. By dis-
missing the petition of the polishers and buffers collective bargaining
in the plant is frustrated. I would leave the way open for a recon-
sideration of the unit if in the future some organization is in a
position to assert bargaining rights for a larger group of employees.z
° See my dissent along similar lines in Matter of The Novelty Steam Boiler Works and
Local 101, Welders, Burners , Apprentices, A. F. of L., 7 N. L it. B. 969, 972.
187930-39-vol. 13-61