B. F. Sturtevant Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 722 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of B. F. STURTEVANT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, POWERHOUSE EMPLOYEES,
OPERATORS AND MAINTENANCE MEN, A. F. OF L.
Case No. R-4221.Decided October 1, 19.1
Jurisdiction : heating and ventilating equipment manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: fail-
ure of Company to reply to petitioner's request for recognition ; election
necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : powerhouse employees, including
maintenance men,•but excluding chief engineer.
Mr. Allan Seserman, of Boston, Mass., for the Company.
Mr. John Duffy, of Boston, Mass., for the Union.
Miss Viola James, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
• DI•RECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Brotherhood of Firemen
and.Oilers,'Powerhouse Employees, Operators and Maintenance Men,
affiliated with .the, American Federation of Labor, herein called the
Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of B. F. Sturtevant Company,,
Boston, Massachusetts, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board'provided for an appropriate hearing upon due-notice
before Thomas H. Ramsey, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Boston, Massachusetts, on August 28, 1942. The Company and
the Union appeared, participated, and were 'afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
The Company on motion direct to the Board moved that the
petition be dismissed on the grounds that (1) the petitioner is not
a labor organization within the meaning of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and (2).•that the petitioner does not represent a majority
of the employees in the appropriate unit. In support of its motion,
44 N L. R B., No 134.
722
B.-F. STURTEVANT COMPANY 723
the Company, on September 15, 1942, filed a brief which the Board
has duly considered. For the reasons appearing in Sections II and
III below, the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
B. F. Sturtevant Company is a Massachusetts corporation with its
principal office and place of business at its Hyde Park plant in Boston.
The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of fans, blowers,
and heating and ventilating equipment. For use in its manufacturing
process, the Company during the past year purchased approximately
250,000 tons of raw materials consisting principally of ferrous and
non-ferrous material, 98 percent of which was shipped to the Company
at its Hyde Park plant from points outside the State of Massachusetts.
During the same year its finished products totaled between 200,000
and 300,000. tons, valued in excess of $10,000,000, practically all of
which was sold and shipped to purchasers in other States and foreign
-countries. There are approximately 1,600 employees at the Hyde
Park plant, the only plant involved herein. The Company admits it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Powerhouse Em-
ployees, Operators and Maintenance Men, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, admitting to membership
employees of the Company 1
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On July 7, 1942, the Union requested bargaining rights. The Com-
pany made no reply.
A statement made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing indicates
that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the
unit alleged as appropriate? It may be, as the Company contends,
1 Although the name of the Union printed on the stationery used in the request for
bargaining is slightly different from both the one appearing on the petition and the one
that the Union representative testified to as correct, the three names undoubtedly refer to
the same organization , and we see no merit in the Company's contention that the Union
herein is not an organization within the meaning of the Act.
2 The Trial Examiner stated that 11 designation cards , dates of which were not shown,
were offered by the Union as proof of representation; that all 11 bore apparently genuine
original signatures ;-and that 9 of the cards bore the names of persons listed on the pay
roll of August '28, 1942. There are approximately 24 employees in the alleged appropriate
unit. I I
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR; REILATIO'NS BOARD
that the Union does not represent a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit, but as is customary in cases of this .kind we shall
leave a 'determination of that question to an election among the em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.
We accordingly, find that a question affecting commerce has arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union and the Company agree that the employees of the power-
house department-at the Hyde Park plant constitute an appropriate
unit. The Union contends that of the 24 employees in the department,
the chief engineer and the 2 maintenance men should be excluded.
The Company does not make its position clear as to the chief engineer;
but desires the 2 maintenance men included.
The powerhouse is 500 yards from the main plant, and is a separate
department in that it has its own time clock, its own pay -roll, and
its employees are paid separately from other employees. The func-
tion of the powerhouse is to generate steam for testing and for power
and heating. None of its employees work in the main plant. In the
powerhouse there are 1 chief engineer, 3 watch engineers, 8 firemen,
7 firemen helpers, 1 coal passer, 2 oilers, and 2 maintenance men-. The
chief engineer is in charge. He supervises the work and is respon-
sible for keeping the equipment in condition. He gives orders and
can discharge employees but does not hire them. We agree with the
Union's contention that the chief engineer 'acts in a supervisory
capacity, and we shall exclude him from the appropriate unit.
The 2 maintenance men pack pump, pistons, and air compressors,
fix belts, and do small repair work in general. They work only in
the powerhouse, and under the,supervision of the chief engineer.
The main plant maintenance men, over whom the chief engineer
ordinarily has no control, work in the powerhouse only in case of
a major breakdown, of which there has been none during the last
6 months. The Union wants the powerhouse maintenance men ex-
cluded for the sole reason that they , did not request 'membership.
However, the Union admits as members all powerhouse employees
and has in the vicinity of the plant approximately 100 contracts
covering such employees, including maintenance men in' some in-
stances. Under the circumstances in this case, we find that the main=
tenance men should be included in the appropriate unit.
We find that the powerhouse employees at the Company's Hyde
Park plant, including the maintenance men, but excluding the chief
engineer, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
B. F. STURTEVANT COMPANY
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
725
The Union prefers the pay-roll period ending August 28, 1942,
,as the eligibility date. We see no reason for departing from our
usual practice concerning the eligibility date, and we therefore shall
direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen
be resolved by an election by secret "ballot among the employees in
the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
'DIRECTION OF ELECTION -
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 ' (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the. Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with B. F. Sturtevant Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 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 First
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and
Regulations, 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, any such
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or in the active military service or training of
the United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding any who have
since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood of Fire-
men and Oilers, Powerhouse Employees, Operators and Maintenance
Men, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
MR. WM. M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.