Association Canado-Americaine

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 520 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of ASSOCIATION CANADO-AMERICAaNE, EMPLOYER and
UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3962.-Decided February 11, 1947
Mr. Ernest R. D'Amours, of Manchester, N. H., for the Employer.
Sheehan, Phinney cC Bass, of Manchester, N. H., by Mr. W. L.
Phinney, and Mr. James L. Whitehouse, of Boston, Mass., for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Henry W. de Kozmian, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Man-
chester, New Hampshire , on September 12, 1946, before Julius Kirle,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Association Canado-Americaine is a non-profit fraternal benefit
society admitting to membership only persons of French descent and
of Catholic creed. It operates pursuant to a special charter from the
State of New Hampshire and its principal office is in Manchester, New
Hampshire . It has a total of 285 lodges and 35,000 members dis-
tributed throughout the New England States and also in the Province
of Quebec, Canada. Of these 35,000 members, approximately 14,000
are in the Province of Quebec , Canada, and approximately 12,000 are
in States of the United States other than the State of New Hampshire.
The Employer issues various kinds of benefit certificates to its mem-
bers and the face value of its outstanding certificates at the time of
the hearing was approximately $25,000,000. The Employer's total
72 N. L R. B, No. 97.
520
ASSOCIATION CANADO-AMERICAINE 521
assets are valued in excess of $4,000,000, consisting principally of
stocks, bonds, and FHA mortgages. The Employer issues benefit cer-
tificates to its members directly from its office in Manchester, New
Hampshire, and part of the premiums paid by members are trans-
mitted to the principal office in Manchester, New Hampshire. A 25
cents per month per capita tax is likewise collected by the principal
office in Manchester, New Hampshire.
During the year ending June 30, 1946, the Employer purchased and
sold securities valued in excess of $1,500,000. During the same period,
the Employer received premiums in the amount of $596,027.42, and
paid to members $317,811.91 in benefits. And during this time the
Employer paid approximately $18,000 to its full-time organizers as
salaries and commissions, while in 1945, the Employer paid approxi-
mately $40,000 in commissions to its part-time organizers.
In the Polish, National Alliance case,' the Supreme Court held that
the operations of a company, substantially identical to those of the
Employer except for their size, affected commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act. In the light of the extent of
the Employer's operations, we find no merit in the Employer's con-
tention that the doctrine of de minimis is applicable and that the
Board, therefore, is without jurisdiction 2
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that its operations
affect 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 has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree generally that the appropriate unit should consist
of all the office and clerical employees of the Employer's Manchester,
1 322 U. S. 643
2 See N. L. R. B. v . Faanblatt, 306 U. S. 601 , 607; N. L. R. B. v. Suburban Lumber Co.,
121 F. ( 2d) 829 (C. C. A. 3).
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Now Hampshire, office, excluding all supervisory employees. There
is disagreement, however, as to four specific employees. The Peti-
tioner would exclude as supervisory employees Walden Gelinas, classi-
fied as an accountant, Gaudius Hibert, classified as assistant to the
secretary-general, and Gerald Robert, classified as a supervisor of
reports and commissions, while the Employer would include them
in the appropriate unit. Furthermore, the Petitioner would exclude
and the Employer would include George Houle, classified as office
messenger.
Walden Gelinas and Gaudius Hibert: Walden Gelinas is in charge
of the accounting department, and about six employees work under
him. He transmits the orders of the office manager to these employ-
ees, assigns their work to them, supervises its execution, and corrects
their mistakes.
Gaudius Hibert is the assistant to the secretary-general and substi-
tutes for him in his absence. He signs checks and dictates letters for
the secretary-general. About seven employees, charged with handling
the correspondence of the Employer, work under him. Like Gelinas,
he transmits orders to these employees, assigns work to them, super-
vises its execution, and corrects their mistakes.
While there is no direct evidence that Gelinas and Hibert exercise
supervisory authority, we believe that there are sufficient indicia of
supervisory authority as to both to warrant their exclusion from this
non-supervisory unit. Thus, their salaries are more than double the
salaries of the highest paid employees working under them, and they
are considered to have supervisory authority by employees of the Em-
ployer. They supervise the work of the employees under them and are
presumably responsible for its efficient execution. Also, they are
called in for consultations with the office manager. Since the office
manager is the only employee above them in the Employer's super-
visory hierarchy, and there are approximately 34 clerical employees,
we believe that any recommendations they might make affecting the
status of employees would be given considerable weight. Moreover,
there is evidence that at different times Gelinas and Hibert were each
in charge of the entire office.
Accordingly, we shall exclude Walden Gelinas and Gaudius Hibert
from the appropriate unit .3
Gerald Robert: Gerald Robert is in charge of the reports and com-
missions department, and has approximately six employees under him.
His supervisory authority would appear to be substantially the same
'See Matter of A S. Campbell Company, Inc., 71 N L. R. B 753; Matter of Jasper
Wood Products Company/, Inc., 63 N. L. R. B. 333.
ASSOCIATION CANADO-AMERICAINE 523
as that of Gelinas and Elbert.' Moreover, Robert is the son of the
Employer's president and this fact alone is sufficient to justify his
exclusion from the unit, since his interests differ from those of other
employees.',
Accordingly, we shall exclude Gerald Robert from the appropriate
unit.
George Houle: George Houle is classified as an oflice messenger, but
it would appear from the record that he is more of a general utility
employee. A substantial portion of his time is devoted to acting as a_
chauffeur for the officers of the Employer. He also wraps books,
which are to be mailed, moves typewriters, and runs errands in the
office. Occasionally, he sweeps the office and helps the cleaning
woman. He does no filing whatsoever. He has a desk in the base-
ment apart from the clerical employees. Houle testified that lie does
not consider himself to be a clerical employee.
We find that Houle's duties differ from those of the office employees,
and we shall, therefore, exclude him from the appropriate unit.
We find that all office and clerical employees of the Employer's
office in Manchester, New Hampshire, excluding George Houle, Gerald
Robert, Walden Gelinas, Gaudius Elbert, executives, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes In the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (h) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Although the Petitioner requests in its brief that it be certified on
the record,- we believe that the question concerning representation
which, has arisen should be resolved by an election by secret ballot,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Association Canado-Ameri-
caine, Manchester, New Hampshire, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as 'arly 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 First Region, acting in this matter
4 Robert, however , works irregularly , inasmuch as he is a professional organist and his
two occupations sometimes conflict Therefore , he is paid by the hour rather than by the
week, as are the Employer 's other clerical employees
5 Matter of The Myers -Sherman. Company, 71 N. L. it. B 910.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 4, 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, and in-
cluding employees in the armed forces of the United States who present
themselves in person at the polls, 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 the election, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by United Office & Professional
Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.