Arlington Chair Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 27 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of ARLINGTON CHAIR COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LOCAL
154, UNITED F URNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1667.-Decided November 9, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Lepie, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer :
The Employer, a Massachusetts corporation with a plant in Gardner,
Massachusetts, manufactures high chairs, cribs, tables, and chairs.
During the year preceding the date of the hearing, the Employer
purchased approximately between $500,000 and $550,000 worth of
raw materials, of which 70 percent was obtained from out-of-State
sources. During the same period, the Employer sold all its finished
products to Thayer, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation whose offices
are located in Gardner, Massachusetts. Thayer, Inc., is engaged in
the purchase and sale of various types of furniture and toys. During
the year preceding the date of the hearing, Thayer, Inc., purchased
in excess of $4,000,000 worth of manufactured products, of which it
sold in excess of 50 percent to customers outside the State. It also
appears that during the period in question, Thayer, Inc., sold more
than 50 percent of the products, purchased from the -Employer, to
out-of-State customers.
I At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the
Congress of Industrial Organizations , the parent body of the Petitioner herein, has not
complied with Section 9 (h) of the Act. The hearing officer reserved ruling on the motion
for the Board . For reasons set forth in J. H . Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
90 NLRB 130 , the motion to dismiss is hereby denied. It may be added that the Board's
records show that the CIO was in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act
at the time the petition herein was filed and is also currently in compliance.
92 NLRB No. 9.
27
`28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.Upon the foregoing facts, we find, contrary to the Employer's con-
tention, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.2
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. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of- collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including John Len-
nerton and Clarence Kendall,3 but excluding executives, clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
8 As Lennerton and Kendall spend half their time as firemen and the other half as
watchmen , we have included them as maintenance employees , in accordance with the
agreement of the parties. • Wiley Mfg. Inc., 1-RC-1674; Samprel Time Control, Inc., 80
NLRB 1250.