Sensenich Brothers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 566 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of HARRY M. SENSENICH, MARTIN M. SENSENICH,
FANNIE M. SENSENICH, AND HETTIE M. SENSENICH, TRADING AND
DOING BUSINESS AS SENSENICH BROTHERS and INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 4-R-1289.-Decided March 17,1944
Mr. Paul A. Mueller, of Lancaster, Pa.,* for the Company.
Mr. Stanley N. Lentz, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Mr. George R.
Co ffroad, of Lancaster, Pa., for the Union.
Mr. Armin Uhler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of
Machinists, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Harry M. Sensenich, Martin M. Sensenich, Fannie M.
Sensenich, and Hettie M. Sensenich, trading and doing business as
Sensenich Brothers, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice before Fred G. Krivonos, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was
held at Lititz, Pennsylvania, on January 21, 1944. 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 evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The Company and the Union filed briefs
which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Sensenich Brothers is a partnership composed of Harry M. Sen-
senich, Martin M. Sensenich, Fannie M. Sensenich, and Hettie M.
55 N L. R. B., No. 102.
566
SENSENICH BROTHERS 567
Sensenich. The Company has its principal office at Lititz, Pennsyl-
vania, and it maintains two plants, one at Lititz and one at Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, for the manufacture of wooden airplane propellers.
During the past year, 75 percent of the raw materials used by the
Company, valued at more than $250,000, was shipped to its plants
from outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same
period, 95 percent of the Company's finished products, which exceeded
$1,000,000 in value, was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
The Company admits that it is en ;aged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that a unit limited to employees of the Com-
pany's Lititz plant is appropriate. The Company is opposed to such
a unit and alleges that the close integration of its Lititz and Lancaster
plants requires the inclusion of both in a single unit.
The record shows that prior to 1942 all of the Company's manufac-
turing operations were carried on at Lititz where the Company has
been permanently established since 1940. In September 1942 orders
from the United States Government brought about a substantial in-
crease in business necessitating an expansion of facilities. Additional
factory space was leased for this purpose at Lancaster to which several
departments were then transferred.' The Company considers the
present arrangement as a temporary measure and it contemplates the
return of these departments to the Lititz plant as soon as Government
orders decline and business contracts to its normal proportions.
Under present conditions the Company's operations and manufac-
turing processes begin at the Lititz plant. Lumber is received at
Lititz and is stored at the Company's lumber yard. It is then moved
to the assembly department for processing. After the lumber has been
kiln-dried, laminations are laid out, provided with hub borings and
inspected. This is followed by joining, planning, and gluing opera-
tions. In the next department the propellers are profiled, seasoned,
and then stored. From there they move successively through the carv-
ing and finishing departments. In the latter, the propellers are pro-
1 The second yearly term of the lease of the Lancaster establishment expires in September
1944.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vided with fabric, painted, and varnished. A final inspection com-
pletes the operations performed at the Lititz plant. The partially fil-
ished propellers are transported by truck 2 to Lancaster. There, after
being again inspected, they enter, in the order mentioned, the metal
tipping, balancing. finishing,' anti hub installation departments. The
finished propellers undergo final inspection and are then sent to the
packing and shipping department.
The several departments of the Lititz and Lancaster plants have
their individual foremen and assistant foremen. However, produc-
tion is under the over-all supervision of the Lititz production manager
from whom the Lancaster production manager receives his orders.
While the various operations of which the continuous manufactur-
ing process consists are divided between the Company's two plants as
outlined above, certain of the departments overlap and there is a
steady interchange of Lititz and Lancaster employees in classifica-
tions within the alleged unit.' The repair sales department which is
located in the Lancaster plant includes several skilled carvers who are
stationed in the Lititz carving department and who are sent to Lan-
caster whenever repair operations call for their services.' The situa-
tion in the case of the maintenance department is similar. This de-
partment has its location and supervision at the Lititz plant and it
services the Lancaster plant either through an employee who is sta-
tioned there, or by sending employees from Lititz when needed. The
finishing department also is dig-ided and is partly located in the Lititz
and partly in the Lancaster plant, operations in the two sections being
substantially identical .13
The evidence indicates that labor shortages at the Lititz plant are
generally supplied by temporary transfers of excess personnel which
periodically becomes available at Lancaster. Transfers at the request
of the Lititz department heads are made for periods varying in length
from several hours to 3 weeks. Employees are frequently requisi-
tioned from Lancaster for the purpose of unloading materials at the
Company's Lititz siding and transporting them to the Lititz plant.
Other temporary transfers are occasioned by the constantly changing
needs for inspectors at various points in the production line. While
both Lititz and Lancaster have separate staffs of inspectors, the uneven
flow of production often necessitates the shifting of inspectors from
2 The Compain's ti tick makes from one to three trips per day to maintain a constant
flow of p1opelleis from Lititz to Lancaster
I Finishing opeiatnons at the Lancaster plant include varnishing, sanding, application of
decalcomania, and spray varnishing
The parties me in agreement that, whatever its geognaphscal scope, the unit should
include all production and maintenance employees, excluding foremen, assistant foremen,
supervisors, office aid clerical employees, engineers, draftsmen, guards, and janitors.
The repair depanlment comes under the sales department which is located at Lititz
The record does not refer to any specific instances of mteachange of finishing employees
between the two sections
SENSENICH BROTHERS 569
one plant to the other. In the aggregate, operations during the 6-
month period preceding the hearing required approximately 75 tem-
porary transfers of the above types.
The Company carries the employees at the two plants on a single
pay roll. The record does not disclose any differences in the employ-
ment policies, working conditions, and wage scales applicable re-
spectively to the Lititz and Lancaster plants.'
As to the present state of organization of the, Company's employees
the evidence indicates that the Union, in September 1943, commenced
and subsequently carried on organizational activities exclusively at
the Lititz plant.' It appears that the Union was successful in secur-
ing at least 27 designations during the first month, and that during
the following 4 months organization progressed steadily at the rate
of from 2 to 9 additional designations per month. At the time of
the hearing the purported membership of the Union was slightly in
excess of 30 percent of the employees at the Lititz plant. On the other
hand, there is nothing in the record to indicate that organization of
the employees at the Lancaster plant would not succeed and progress
similarly if attempted.9
Under all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the inter-
relation of the Company's Lititz and Lancaster plants as exemplified
by the extent and complexity of the interchange of employees between
them,70 as well as the inconclusive state of organization, Ave find that
the unit proposed by the Union is inappropriate. We shall, therefore,
dismiss the petition herein without prejudice. Our finding concern-
ing the unit alleged in the present petition, however, does not preclude
the reinvestigation by the Board of the appropriateness of a similar
unit upon a new petition supported by a showing of material changes
in the circumstances which underlie our Decision herein."
Cf Matter of Metal Office Furniture Company, 51 N L 11 n 991
8In support of its petition the Union, as iepol ted by the Regionau Dneetor, submitted 76
application and designation cards, 49 of which bole the appaienLly genuine original signa-
tures of employees whose names appeal on the Company's pay ioll of Decenibei 11, 1.943.
This pay roll contains the names of 175 emplovecs in the .1 leged appiopi i.ite unit Of the
49 cards, 27 were dated in September, 7 in October, 2 in November, and 9 in Decenibei 1943.
Four cards were undated
At the hearing the Union submitted four additional applIation cards bearing like signa-
tures of employees in the unlit claimed and listed on the Company's Decmuboi 11, 1,943, pay
roil These cards weIe dated in .lanoniy 1044
9Cf Matter of Metal Office Fm nntuic Coinpan , sap1a; Matter of Standard Oveiall Com-
pany, 53 N L It B 960
10 Cf Mattci of Standard Overall Company, sapia
n while a pnor dot ernunation ht the i'o,ird chat a ceitanr and is of is not appiopuale
will be given great iseight by the hoard in a lati'i iepresentation proceeding intolriig the
same industry, such a detm9uuintion is not couclusne, especutlly iiliere it his not laconic the
basis of a certification or of collective halgannng Sce Matter of Keituefy Fluorspar
Company, 52 N L 11 B 227
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition
is not appropriate as found in Section III, above, we find that no
question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the
Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives of employees of Harry M. Sensenich, Martin
M. Sensenich, Fannie M. Sensenich, and Hettie M. Sensenich, trading
and doing business as Sensenich Brothers, Lititz, Pennsylvaia, filed
herein by International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.