Aerovox Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1938

10 N.L.R.B. 652 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of AERovox CORPORATION and FEDERATION OF ARCHI-
TECTS, ENGINEERS , CHEMISTS , AND TECHNICIANS , CIO., CHAPTER
No. 31
Case No. R-1056.-Decided December 14, 1,938
Electrical Equipment Manufacturing Industry--Investiggation of Representa-
tives: controversy concerning representation of employees: controversy concern-
ing appropriate unit; employer's refusal to recognize petitioning union until
question of appropriate unit is settled-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bar-
gaining- supervisors and assistant supervisors, sample makers, and techni-
cians-Representatives: proof of choice: membership application cards-
Certifiication of Representatives: upon proof of majority representation.
Mr. Christopher W. Hoey, for the Board.
Mr. Abraham J. Rosenblum, of New York City, for the. Company.
Mr. David Scribner, of New York City, for the Federation.
Mr. Harry E. Selekman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 25, 1938, Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists
and Technicians, Chapter No. 31, herein called the Federation, filed
with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City)
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Aerovox Corporation,
Brooklyn, 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 19, 1938, 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, ordered an investiga-
tion and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to pro-
vide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On September 29, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the
10N.L R B,No 50.
652
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 653
Federation, United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of
America, Local No. 1206, and Radio Local B-1010, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Pursuant to the notice, a hear-
ing was held at Brooklyn, New York, on October 10, 11, 13, and 14,
1938, before Harlow Hurley, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the Federation were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.' Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the hearing counsel for the Company moved that the petition be
dismissed. The motion is hereby denied. 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
such rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On November 10, 1938, the Company filed a brief. Pursuant to
notice, a hearing was held before the Board on the same day, for the
purpose of oral argument. The Company and the Federation were
represented by counsel and participated therein.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE COMPANY
Aerovox Corporation, a New York corporation, manufactures con-
densers for radio and industrial use at Brooklyn, New York. Ap-
proximately one-third of the raw materials used by the Company,
consisting of aluminum, paper, gauze, and chemicals, are shipped to
it from points outside the State of New York and about one-third of
the finished products are shipped to States other than New York.
The Company concedes that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Board.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians,
Chapter No. 31, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee
for Industrial Organization, admitting to its membership techni-
cians, sample makers, supervisors, and assistant supervisors of the
Company.
' Neither United Electrical , Radio, and Machine Workers of America , Local No 1206,
nor Radio Local B-1010 , International Brotherhood of Electrical workers, appeared at
the heaiing or participated in the proceeding . The president of the United Electrical,
Radio , and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1206 , which had been bargaining with
the Company for its production and maintenance employees , testified that his oigamzation
did not represent any of the employees involved in this proceeding
€654 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In August 1938, the Federation requested that it be recognized
by the Company as the bargaining representative for the technicians,
'supervisors, and assistant superviors and offered to submit its mem-
bership application cards for purposes of comparison with the Com-
pany's pay roll. Objecting to the unit proposed by the Federation,
the Company refused to grant such recognition until the Board
should determine the appropriate unit.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
,employees of the Company.
DIV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION 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, trafi'ic, 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 Federation contends that the appropriate unit should be
-composed of supervisors and assistant supervisors, sample makers,
and technicians. The Company argues that the differences in train-
ing and education, the work performed, and the interests of the three
classes of employees require that each group constitute a separate
appropriate unit.
The supervisors and assistant supervisors lay out the work for
groups of production employees in accordance with the specifications
received from the technicials in the specifications department and
the chemical and electrical laboratories. They are charged- with
the responsibility of completing the assignments within the time
allotted by the planning department. The supervisors and assistant
supervisors do not have the power to hire and discharge and they
work under the foremen and heads of the various departments. Most
of the supervisors and assistant supervisors have been promoted to
their present positions after many years of work as production
employees. Sample makers are production employees, who because
of their skill in the fabrication of condensers have been assigned to
the job of making samples for orders received from customers. The
technicians are scientifically trained employees, who work in the
specifications department and in the chemical and electrical -labora-
tories, In addition to preparing specifications for the supervisors
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 655
and assistant supervisors, they are engaged in research for the pur-
pose of improving the materials and methods of production of the
condensers and finding new uses for them.
We are of the opinion that the supervisors and assistant super-
visors, sample makers, and technicians may properly constitute a
single unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. Although the
production and maintenance employees have been- represented by
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, Local
No. 1206, no labor organization is at present claiming jurisdiction
over, or bargaining for, the employees claimed by the Federation.2
Furthermore, a majority of the employees in each of these classifica-
tions have signified their desire to be represented by the Federation.
The Federation desires to exclude executives, heads of departments,
foremen, and clerical employees from the bargaining unit. The Com-
pany did not object to the exclusion. We shall follow our usual
practice where the only labor organization involved desires the ex-
clusion of such employees and shall not include them within the
appropriate unit.3
The Federation stated at the hearing that it did not desire to
represent certain employees whom the Company had classified as
supervisors and technicians. Since the Federation and the Company
are in disagreement as to the inclusion of these employees in the
unit, we shall consider the nature of the work they perform in the
plant.
0. Cogginsi and L. Kahn. G. Coggins and L. Kahn are the heads
of the chemical and electrical laboratories, respectively. Although
they do not have the power to hire and discharge, they direct and
supervise the research initiated by Herbert Waterman, the manager
and chief technician in the plant. The salaries of these two men
are considerably higher than those of the other laboratory technicians.
We shall exclude Coggins and Kahn from the unit as heads of
departments.
A. Sklar. The Federation alleged that this employee is the head
of the specifications department. The Company did not dispute this
contention and we shall exclude Sklar fom the appropriate unit.
J. Stager, H. Eck, J. Lannon, and A. Lash,er. The Federation intro-
duced evidence showing that J. Stager is a foreman in the mainte-
nance department, that H. Eck is the foreman of the machine shop,
that J. Lanson is in charge of the shipping department, and that
A. Lasher is a foreman in the electrolytic department. Although
the Company urged that these men be included within the unit, it
2 Cf. Matter of Boston Daily Record (Nero England Newspaper Co) and Newspaper Guild
of Boston (American Newspaper Guild), 8 N. L. R. B. 694.
° See Matter of Holland Reiger Division of Apex Electric Co. and United Electrical Radio
and Machine Workers of America, 6 N L. It. B. 156.
656 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not, by convincing evidence, show that the description of their
work as offered by the Federation was inaccurate. We are of the
opinion that their status is that of foremen, and we shall, therefore,
exclude them from the unit.
A. Glassman, D. Horowitz, and N. Slater. The Federation also
desired to exclude Glassman and Horowitz from the bargaining unit.
because they are office employees. The record shows that they work
in the office of the Company, preparing time studies and other data
for the cost department. Their studies show the cost of producing
the condensers and enable the Company to adopt the most efficient
methods in the use of labor and materials. The evidence shows that
the duties of these individuals are different from those of the other
technicians. We shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit. Al-
though the position of the Federation with respect to N. Slater, who
also works in the cost department, is not shown in the record, since
his work is similar to that performed by Horowitz, we shall also
exclude him from the unit.
W. Kornhauser. W. Kornhauser is a radio service employee who
advises the sales department concerning the difficulties arising from
the use of the condensers. He also makes sample boards for the
publicity division. Although the Company stated that he spends
some time in laboratory work, it does not appear from the record
that his work- and interests are closely allied to those of the tech-
nicians. We shall not include him within the unit.
H. Golenpaul. H. Golenpaul is an assistant in the laboratory.
It does not appear from the record that he is engaged in the type
of work performed by the technicians. We shall exclude him from
the unit.
We find that the supervisors and assistant supervisors, sample
makers, and technicians, excluding executives, heads of departments,
foremen, and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to
employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuate
the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing the Company submitted in evidence a list con-
taining the names of 69 employees appearing on the' last pay roll of
the Company prior to August 22, 1938, the date when United Elec-
trical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1206,
called a strike and since which date the plant has not operated at
full capacity. In addition to the 12 employees excluded from the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 657
unit in Section V, 2 others are no longer with the Company.4 There
remains a total of 55 employees within the appropriate unit.
The Federation introduced 42 application cards in evidence, most
of which bear dates in August 1938. A comparison of these cards
with the Company's list reveals that J. Lippel and M. Finger, who
signed application cards, are clerical employees in charge of the
records in the pay-roll department and stockroom, respectively, and
that S. Coleman, IT. Taub, W. Auerbacher, and A. Weissman, who
had also signed such cards, were no longer with the Company. In
addition, five employees 5 stated at the hearing that they no longer
desired the Federation to act as their bargaining representative.
Thus, 31 employees of a total of 55 in the appropriate unit have
signified their desire to be represented by the Federation. Counsel
for the Company argued in his brief that not all of the employees
who signed application cards had paid initiation fees or dues and
that they therefore could not be regarded as members. Samuel Sack,
secretary of the Federation, testified that the secretary-treasurer of
the national organization had waived the payment of dues and initia-
tion fees. Moreover, we have held in a number of cases 6 that an
application card in a labor organization is sufficient to designate such
organization as the representative for purposes of collective bargain-
ing and that the Act does not require membership as a condition
precedent to such designation.
We find that the Federation has been designated and selected by
a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining.. It is, therefore,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning repre-
sentation of employees of Aerovox Corporation, Brooklyn, New York,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The supervisors and assistant supervisors, sample makers, and
technicians of the Company, excluding executives, heads of depart-
ments, foremen, and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate
C. Bonilla and W. Auerbacher had left the employ of the Company at the time of the
healing.
These are J. Scagnelli , B. Sterenfeld , L. Cohen , R. Carbonero , and W. Finger.
See Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union , United Automobile
Workers of America, Local No 459, 8 N. L R B 621, and cases cited therein.
658 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning' of
Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians,
Chapter No. 31, is the exclusive representative of all the employees
in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National'
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Federation of Architects, Engineers,
Chemists and Technicians, Chapter No. 31, has been designated and
selected by a majority of the supervisors and assistant supervisors,
sample makers, and technicians of Aerovox Corporation, Brooklyn,
New York, excluding executives, heads of departments, foremen, and
clerical employees, as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section
9 (a) of the Act, Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and
Technicians, Chapter No. 31, is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD Sbirri took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.