Arrow Throwing Rayon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 1335 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of DANIEL VACGA, SR., AND MARY VACCA, CO-PARTNERS,
DOING BUSINESS AS ARROW THROWING RAYON COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 4-RC-1-7.-Decided April 9, 1948
Nogi, O'Malley ei Harris, by Messrs. John R. Lenahan and James
E. O'Brien, of Scranton, Pa., for the Employer.
Mr. Elwood Taub, of Scranton, Pa., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed; hearing in this case was held at Scranton,
Pennsylvania, on January 13, 1948, before John H. Garver, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
During the course of the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the unit requested is inappropriate.
The hearing officer did not rule on this motion. For the reasons set
forth in Section IV, the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 2 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Daniel Vacca, Sr., and Mary Vacca, Co-partners , doing business
as Arrow Throwing Rayon Company, are engaged at Hawley, Penn-
sylvania , in operations described as commercial throwsters . During
the past fiscal year the Employer purchased materials valued in ex-
cess of $100,000, of which approximately 100 percent was purchased
'The petition and all formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct
name of the Employer.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-man panel consisting of Board Members Houston , Reynolds , and Gray.
76 N. L. R. B., No. 186.
1335
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During
the same period, the Employer's sales of yarn were valued in excess
of $150,000, of which approximately 100 percent was sold and shipped
to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
,of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner and the Employer agree that production and main-
tenance employees, excluding supervisors, constitute an appropriate
unit. The parties disagree concerning the status of two clerical em-
ployees, the chief mechanic, and the mechanic on the night shift.
Clerical employees: Mary Smith and Dorothy Schumann are cleri-
cal employees. The Employer takes the position that Smith and
Schumann are plant clericals and therefore should be included within
the production and maintenance unit. The Petitioner takes the posi-
tion that they are office clericals, and therefore should be excluded
from the production and maintenance unit.
Smith and Schumann work in a room adjoining the office of the
,manager and superintendent. Their duties consist of answering the
telephone, typing, taking dictation, typing correspondence for the
manager and superintendent, and performing some pay-roll and some
general clerical duties. As a part of their duties, Smith and Schumann
make time production studies of work throughout the plant; i. e.,
they check the time when a particular machine starts on a lot of yarn
and the time it finishes. They check the weight of the finished yarn
to obtain the production of the machine. These time studies ap-
parently have no effect or influence on the wages of the employees. '
ARROW THROWING RAYON COMPANY 1337
Smith and Schumann are supervised only by the manager and super-
intendent. They are paid on a salary basis. Production and mainte-
nance employees working in the plant are paid on an hourly basis.
Smith and Schumann perform all the Employer's office clerical
work. The fact that they include in their duties time checking in the
plant proper is not sufficient to include them in the plant unit of pro-
duction and maintenance workers. We find that Smith and Schumann
are office clericals and shall exclude them from the unit of production
and maintenance employees."
Chief mechanic: Three mechanics repair and maintain machines in
the plant on the day shift, one of whom is designated as the chief
mechanic. The Employer takes the position that the chief mechanic
should be included within the production and maintenance unit. The
Petitioner takes the position that the chief mechanic is a "supervisor"
and, as such, should be excluded from the unit.
The duties of the chief mechanic are to repair and maintain the
machines in the Employer's plant. His work is assigned by the super-
intendent or by the manager. The chief mechanic does not supervise
or assign work to the other two mechanics on the day shift. He has
no authority to hire or to discharge and he makes no recommendations
as to promotions, salaries, or hours. The chief mechanic has no au-
thority over the production employees. The chief mechanic is paid on
an hourly basis at a rate about 14 cents per hour higher than the pay
of the other two mechanics. He is classified as chief mechanic because
he possesses the greater mechanical skill.
Inasmuch as the relations of the chief mechanic to the other two
mechanics is that of the more skilled to the lesser skilled craftsmen,
and not that of supervisor to subordinates, and, because the chief
mechanic has no supervisory duties, we find that he is not a "supervisor"
within the meaning of the Act, and we will include him in the unit as a
maintenance employee.'
Night mechanic: The night mechanic or "mechanic helper" works
at the plant from 6 p. in. to 7 a. in., maintaining and operating ma-
chines. The Employer takes the position that the night mechanic
should be included within the production and maintenance unit. The
Petitioner takes the position that the night mechanic is a supervisor,
and as such, should be excluded from the unit.
The night mechanic repairs and maintains the machines during the
second shift of employees. He operates the machines on the third
shift. The superintendent of the plant lives next door to the plant.
3 Matter of Hall Level t Manufacturing Works, 72 N. L. R. B. 165.
'Matter of William C Meredith Company, 74 N. L. R. B. 1064; Matter of Gullett Gist
company, 72 N L. R. B. 1101.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If a lot of yarn runs out during the evening shifts, the night mechanic
calls the superintendent who obtains the next lot of yarn from the
stock room. If an employee is ill or any emergency arises, the night
mechanic summons the superintendent.
The night mechanic has no authority to hire, discharge, or to excuse
employees. The night mechanic makes no recommendations for pro-
motions or pay increase. The superintendent assigns all jobs and the
night mechanic gives no instructions to any of the production
employees as to their particular tasks.
Under these circumstances, we find that the night mechanic is not
a "supervisor" within the meaning of the Act, and we shall include
the night mechanic in the unit as a maintenance employee.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer, including the chief mechanic and night mechanic, but ex-
cluding the office clerical employees 5 and supervisors, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On or about October 20, 1947, a strike occurred at the Employer's
plant. The plant was shut down for 1 day, with all but 13 employees
returning to work on October 21. The strike continued for about 5
weeks. After the cessation of the strike, 7 of the 13 strikers were
requested to return to work, and 3 actually returned. The Employer
intends to rehire the strikers in the order of seniority in the various
departments.
Either during or since the strike, two or three new persons were
hired. The Petitioner contends that these employees should not be
eligible to vote in any election. The Employer disagrees.
The Employer contends that these new employees were not hired to
replace the strikers, and that they are not performing the work of the
strikers, but that the new employees were hired for jobs that developed
and required filling.
The Petitioner has filed no unfair labor practice charge against the
Employer.
Under these circumstances, we find that all persons hired since Octo-
ber 20, 1947, the date of the strike, and who are listed on the pay roll
designated in our Direction of Election, shall be deemed eligible to
vote 6
s Smith and Schumann as office clericals are excluded from the appropriate unit.
Matter of Hinson Manufacturing Company, 73 N L It. B 119 ; Matter of Montgomery
Ward & Company, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B. 416.
ARROW THROWING RAYON COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
1339
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining with Daniel Vacca, Sr., and Mary
Vacca, Co-partners, doing business as Arrow Throwing Rayon Com-
pany, of Hawley, Pennsylvania, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, and subject to Sections
203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, 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 reinstated prior to the date of this election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile Workers
Union of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.