Sculler Safety Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1941

36 N.L.R.B. 1160 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of SCULLER SAFETY CORPORATION and DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF NASSAU COUNTY OF TILE UNITED BROIHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS &
JOINERS OF AMERICA (A. F. OF L.)
Case No. R-31'71.Decided November 21, 1941
Jurisdiction : life-saving rafts manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: Com-
pany refused to bargain with the union until certification by the Board ;
election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em-
ployees including stock clerks and watchmen, but excluding executives, super-
visors, foremen and clerical employees; stipulation as to.
Mr. 'Jess J. Lappner, of New York City, for the Company. * ,
Delson,, Levin c6 Gordon, by Mr. I. Cyr vs Gordon, of New York
City, for the Union.
Mr. George A. Koplow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On or about July 16, 1941, District Council of Nassau County of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters &- Joiners of America (A. F. of L.),
herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the
Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging that a question
affecting commerce bad arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Sculler Safety Corporation, Lindenhurst, New York, 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 September 30,
1941, 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 Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
36 N L R. B, No 237.
1160
SCULLER SAFETY CORPORATION 1161
The Regional Director issued a ,notice of hearing on October 2,
1941, and a notice of postponement of hearing on October 13, 1941.
Copies of both were duly served upon the Company and the Union.
Pu=rsuant.to the notices, a hearing was held on October 20, 1941, at New
York City, before Frederick R. Livingston, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. 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 upon the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled
thata statement of the Regional Director concerning union authoriza-
tion cards and a petition submitted to her for examination should be
allowed in evidence over the objection of the Company. The Trial
Examiner also rejected the Company's offer to introduce as an exhibit
a petition allegedly signed by certain employees of the Company and
stating that said employees, "ale opposed to making any changes in
the present shop set-up and are not in favor of organizing same."
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner also made sev-
eral other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record of the case, the Board makes the following::
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RUSINFSS OF THE COMPANY
Sculler Safety Corporation is a New York corporation with its
principal office in New York City and factories in Lindenhurst and
West Babylon , New York. At its factory located at Lindenhurst,
which is the only phase of the Company 's operations concerned in
these proceedings , the Company manufactures life saving rafts for the
United States Navy Department. The principal raw materials pur-
chased by the Company are balsa -wood , canvas , cork, paint , and brass,
of which 80 per cent are purchased from places outside the State of
New York. From April 1, 1941, to October 1 , 1941, the Company
sold finished products in excess of $50,000, of which 70 per cent were
shipped from the Lindenhurst factory to places outside the State of
New York. The Company concedes for the purpose of these proceed-
ings that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District Council of Nassau County of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Feder-
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Company:
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to bargain with any labor organization
until the Board has certified it to be the exclusive representative of
employees in an appropriate unit.
There was introduced into evidence a statement of the Regional
Director that the Union, at the time the petition was filed, represented
a substantial number of the employees of the Company in the unit
hereinafter found to be appropriate.,
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENT.1T[O_N 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 Company and the Union stipulated and we find that all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Company's Lindenhurst
factory, including the stock clerks and watchmen, but excluding execu-
tives, supervisors, foremen, and clerical employees, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We find further
'that'said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit
The Regional Director stated that the Union had submitted to her 40 authorization
cards, all of which weic dated between July 1 and September 10, 1941. All. bore ap-
parently genuine original signatures of persons on the Company's pay ioll of July 16,
1941 The Regional Director also stated that the union had submitted a petition dated
May 22, 1941, containing 52 signatures, designating tine Union as the collective bargaining
agent of the signers Thirty-five of the 52 were apparently genuine original signatuies of
persons on the Company's pay roll of July 16, 1941 Twenty-tour of these 35 signatures
on the petition also appeared upon the authoiization c,iids mentioned above The Union
therefore presented a total of 51 signatures, excluding duplicates, of persons on the
Company's pay roll of July 16, 1941 Evidence indicates that there are appioxnnately
70 to 80 employees in the unit lieieinatter found to be appropriate
The Company attempted to intioduce into evidence a petition allegedly signed on or
about Octobei 9, 1941, by all but one or two of the employees of the Company, stating that
said employees "are opposed to making and changes in the piesent shop set-up and are
not in favor of organizing same." As stated above, the Trial Examiner rejected the
offer of this evidence, and we have afRimed his ruling The representation showing made
by the Union, even assuming that thereafter employees may have indicated a desire not
to be represented by it,'is neveitheless sufficient to raise a question conceining represen-
tation.
SCULLER SAFETY CORPORATION 1163
of, their right to self -organization and to collective bargaining and
otherwise will effectuate the policies of the Act.
' VI. TIIE'DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen
('an best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The parties re-