A. Rivetz Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1352 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of A. RIVETZ Co., EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C . I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1242.-Decided December 29, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Torbert H.
Macdonald , hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting. commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
( 1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. There is no disagreement as to the general composition of the
unit of production employees . There is a question as to the inclu -
sion of certain employees.
Homeworkers
The Employer seeks to include ,, while the Petitioner would exclude,
homeworkers from the proposed production unit. There are 13 home-
workers and 7 plant-production employees in the hire of the Employer.
All the employees , at the plant or at home , are paid on a piece rate
basis. All appear to be covered by the Employer 's Blue Cross insurance
arrangement and other insurance . Social security and income tax
deductions are made from both home and factory workers. Two
or three of the employees now working at home previously worked
in the plant.
87 NLRB No. 142.
1352
A. RIVETZ CO. 1353
Work is delivered to the homeworkers' homes by the Employer's
truck and-picked up when completed. Rarely does an employee work-
ing at home have occasion to visit the factory. The only supervision
over homeworkers except for new employees, is over their work rather
than over them personally. Some of the homeworkers have been in
the employ of the Employer for as long as 10 years. All of them
are licensed and under the supervision of the State of Massachusetts.
On these facts and on the record as a whole, we find that there is in-
sufficient community of interest between the homeworkers and the
plant employees to warrant the inclusion of the homeworkers in the
unit.,
William Sugarman
The Employer questions the inclusion of this employee in the pro-
posed'unit because he is a part-time worker. Since Sugarman does a
type of work admittedly included in the unit, he will necessarily be
represented by the Petitioner if it wins the election we are directing
in this proceeding. We find, therefore, that Sugarman is in the unit.
The separate question as to whether he is eligible to vote in the election
is discussed in paragraph numbered 5, below.
We find that all production employees of the Employer at its Boston,
Massachusetts, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, salesmen,
truck drivers, maintenance employees, and guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. There is a dispute, heretofore mentioned in paragraph 4, as to
the status of William Sugarman. This employee works on a part-
time basis. He does four-in-hand pressing, a regular production op-
eration. Though there are other pressers, Sugarman is the only one do-
ing this particular type of pressing. He has been in the employ of the
Employer for almost 2 years. During 1948, he averaged 12 to 15
hours per week. He apparently receives the same insurance and Blue
Cross benefits as do the other employees, and, like them, is paid on a
piece-rate basis. We are of the opinion that Sugarman's tenure is
sufficiently regular and substantial to entitle him to participate in
the selection of the bargaining representative? We therefore find
that Sugarman is eligible to vote in the election hereinafter ordered.
1 See Radiant Lamp Corporation, 74 NLRB 1338; Howell Electric Motors Company, 59
NLRB 1171.
See Providence Public Market Company, 79 NLRB 1482.
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As. part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National. Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain
ing, by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. O.