Binns Passaic Iron & Brass Foundry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 380 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of CHARLES BINNS, ET AL ., D/B/A BINN-S PASSAIC IRON &
BRASS FOUNDRY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS & FOUN-
DRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC=90.-Decided April 07, 19418
Feder & Rinzler, by Mr. Joseph A. Feder, of Passaic, N. J., and
Mr. Charles D. Binns, of Clifton, N. J., for the Employer.
Messrs. Frank Jennette and Alfred L. Cook, of New York City, for
the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Passaic,
New Jersey, on January 7, 1948, before Robert Silagi, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Charles Binns, Warren Binns, Russell Binns, Harold Binns, and
Henry Binns, copartners doing business as Binns Passaic Iron & Brass
Foundry, herein called the Employer, are engaged in the manufacture
of grey iron and semi-steel castings at their establishment in Passaic,
New Jersey. During 1947, the Employer purchased for use in its
operations materials valued at $73,248, of which $22,163 represented
purchases and shipments from sources outside the State of New Jersey.
During the same year, the Employer sold approximately $300,000
worth of finished products to purchasers within the State, including
' 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 Chairman Herzog
and Board Members Murdock and Gray.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 60.
380
BINNS PASSAIC IRON & BRASS FOUNDRY 381
a number of companies engaged in interstate commerce and over
which the Board has asserted jurisdiction in other proceedings.2
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act 3
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, 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 Peti-
tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Employer asserted at the hearing that evidence of the Petition-
er's showing of representative interest should be introduced in evi-
dence. As we have frequently held that the Petitioner's prima facie
showing of representation is solely a matter of administrative proce-
dure to be determined by the Board itself, we find no merit in the
Employer's Contention .4
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 seeks a unit consisting of the Employer's molders,
core makers and apprentices, excluding supervisors as defined in the
Act. The Employer takes no position with respect to the appropriate-
ness of the proposed unit. It is clear that these employees compose
a well-recognized, apprenticeable craft group, such as we have here-
tofore found may constitute an appropriate unit.5
3 Matter of Manhattan Rubber Manufacturing Division of Raybestos -Manhattan, Inc.,
71 N L R . B 673 ; Matter of United States Rubber Company, 20 N. L. R. B . 473; and also
consent-election proceedings in Matter of Rutherford Machinery Division of Sun Chemical
Corporation, Case No. 2-R-7738; and Matter of Morrison Machine Company, Case No.
2-R-7548.
s See Matter of Keith Furnace Company, 73 N. L. R. B. 754 ; and Matter of The Con-
solidated Pipe Company, 72 N. L . R. B. 1236.
4 Matter of 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 N. L. R. B. 516; Matter of Mascot Stove
Company, 75 N. L R. B. 427; and Matter of Davis Lumber Company, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B.
851.
5Matter of Savill Company , 74 N. L R. B 14 ; and Matter of John Deere Dubuque
Tractor Company , 72 N. L. R. B. 656.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all molders , core makers and apprentices employed
by the Employer , excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Charles Binns, et al ., d/b/a
Binns Passaic Iron & Brass Foundry, Passaic , New Jersey , 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 direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-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
the election , and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled
to reinstatement , to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by International Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North
America, AFL , for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.