Bay State Optical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 53 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of BAY STATE OPTICAL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 129, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-49.Decided April 12, 1948
Mr. Sidney A. Aisner, of Boston, Mass., for the Employer.
Messrs. Harold Reardon, of Boston, Mass., and Peter F. Stuart, of
Providence, R. I., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Joseph Duggan, of Boston Mass ., for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Provi-
dence, Rhode Island, on December 22, 1947, before Robert E. Greene,
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-man
panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.*
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following : -
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOY)!,R
Bay State Optical Company, a Maine corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of optical frames and mountings at Attleboro, Massa-
chusetts. The Employer annually purchases materials valued at ap-
proximately $400,000, of which approximately 30 percent is received
from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Em-
ployer annually produces articles valued in excess of $500,000, more
than 50 percent of which is shipped to points outside the Common-
wealth. - -
The Employer admits,'and we find, that -it is engaged in commerce
'within the meaning of the Act.
* Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Gray.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 6.
788886-49-vol 77-5
53
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.
The Optical and Instrument Workers International Union, herein
called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con-
gress 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 DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in the Employer's tool-
room, including tool makers, die makers, force makers, and machinists,
but excluding clerical employees, executives, and all supervisors.
Since March 1946 the toolroom employees have been included in a pro-
duction and maintenance unit for which the Intervenor was selected
as bargaining representative in a consent election conducted by the
Board.' On October 24, 1946, the Intervenor entered into a contract
with the Employer, covering the employees in this unit, which was
terminated at the end of its initial period of 1 year.
The Employer and Intervenor agree with the Petitioner that the
toolroom employees constitute a traditionally recognized craft group
that may compose an appropriate unit. The parties further agree
that these employees have never had an opportunity in an election
to express their desire for representation in a separate unit. We shall
direct that an election be held among the employees in the Employer's
toolroom, including tool makers, die makers, force makers, and ma-
chinists, but excluding clerical employees, executives, and all super-
visors as defined' in the Act.
We shall make no final determination of the appropriate unit at
this time, but shall defer such finding pending the results of this
election. If a majority of the above voting group choose the Peti-
tioner, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a
separate unit. If, however, they choose the Intervenor, they will be
taken to have indicated a desire to remain part of the plant-wide unit.
' Case No 1-R-2941.
BAY STATE OPTICAL COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 2
55 -
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Bay State Optical Company,
Attleboro, Massachusetts, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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, and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 5, among the employees in the voting group described
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 the election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to de-
termine whether they desire to be represented by International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, Lodge 129, or by Optical and Instrument Work-
ers International Union, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, or by neither.
2 Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot