Bischof Die and Engraving

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1346 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New York and New Jersey Casket Manufacturers Association, described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Local 3128, the Respondent Union herein, has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it, its officers, agents, and
representatives, be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case , this Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. The Respondent, Casket Makers Local 3128, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. The activities of the Respondent, Local 3128, above described, occurring in
connection with the operation of members of the Metropolitan New York and New
Jersey Casket Manufacturers Association, as set forth above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
with foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce and constitute unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
3. Since on or about January 10, 1955, Local 3128, the Respondent Union, has
induced and encouraged employees of, among others, Universal Funeral Chapel, Inc.;
Riverside Memorial Chapel, Inc.; Thomas M. Quinn & Sons, Inc., Conway Funeral
Home; New York Funeral Service Company, Inc.; Peter J. Hughes Funeral Home;
Frank E. Campbell (The Funeral Church), Inc.; Schwartz Brothers Memorial
Chapels, Inc.; William A. Martin Funeral Home; Petrucello's Funeral Home; Fred-
erick Memorial Chapels; Wiegand Bros.; John Graham & Sons, Inc.; Walter A.
Williams, Inc ; Thomas J. Reed, Inc.; August Fischelberg, Inc.; Brettschneider Fu-
neral Home; Thomas F. Bergen & Sons, Inc., Waters Funeral Home; Joseph Burns
Funeral Home, J. S. Garlick, Inc.; William H. Nast & Sons; James J. Fox & Sons;
John Smolenski Funeral Home, Inc.; Franzesi & Curcullo; Charles Weydeg & Sons;
John J. Megiel, Inc.; John Vogel Funeral Home; Sims Funeral Home; Hallett &
Hallett, Inc.; John E. Metzner, all funeral directors or undertakers or engaged in
the disposal of the bodies of deceased persons according to law in the State of New
York, to engage in strikes or other concerted refusals in the course of their employ-
ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise or work on any goods,
articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform services for their respective em-
ployers, the object of the Respondent Union being in contravention of Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are infer labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
John Dischof, An Individual , d/b/a Bischof Die and Engraving I
and Local 849, International Association of Tool Craftsmen,
Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-4493. December 12, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard E. Simon, hear-
' The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
114 NLRB No. 208.
BISCHOF DIE AND ENGRAVING 1347
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the Employer presently is not engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
The Employer, a tool- and die-maker, has his only plant at Racine,
Wisconsin. During the 1954 calendar year he sold tools, dies, and
machine parts valued at approximately $140,000. Of the sales, in
excess of $100,000 represented shipments to plants located in Wiscon-
sin, each of which'shipped goods valued at $50,000 or more outside
the State. The products sold by the Employer were directly utilized
by the purchasers in the products or processes of their enterprises.
Of the total sales, about $88,000 represented sales of tank parts to a
single customer, Massey-Harris. The business with Massey-Harris
has been completed. As a consequence, the Employer's total sales
during the first 7 months of 1955 declined to about $38,000, of which
about $18,000 represented shipments to points outside the State of
Wisconsin. At the time of the hearing, the Employer had only about
3 days' work for the plant. However, he was not able to estimate
the volume of his business for the balance of the year because of the un-
certain nature of that business. The Intervenor argues that, in de-
termining whether or not to assert jurisdiction, the Board should not
rely on the 1954 figures of business done.
Ina recent decision,' the Board said :
However, the Board, in applying its jurisdictional standards has
heretofore uniformly relied on the experience of an employer
during the most recent calendar or fiscal year, or the 12-month
period immediately preceding the hearing before the Board,
where such experience was available. To rely instead . . . on
employers' predictions as to their future operations would invite
speculation by them as to matters within their peculiar know] edge.
We do not believe that such a policy would be administratively
feasible or desirable where, as here, commerce data for a recent
annual period is available.
2 At the hearing, the hearing officer rejected evidence offered by Tool & Die Makers & Die
Sinkers Lodge No 849, International Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called the
Intervenor, bearing on the alleged lack of status of the Petitioner as a labor oigamzatmn
The Intervenor admitted that the rejected offer of proof involved the same evidence
already presented by it in Webster Electntie Co, 13-RC--4284, and John Oster Mfo Co,
13-RC-4423 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders), in which
the Board found that the Petitioner was a labor orgamcation within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 5) of the Act The hearing officer 's ruling is therefore affirmed , and the
Intervenor 's motion to remand the case for the purpose of adducing this evidence is
hereby denied
3 Aroostook Federation of Farmers, Inc , 114 NLRB 538
387644-56- vol. 114-86
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, as the Employer's sales during the 1954 calendar year
meet the Board's present standards for asserting jurisdiction,4 we find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein. The Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition is
therefore denied.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer. The parties stipulated that the Inter-
venor is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. How-
ever, the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that
the Petitioner (a) is not a labor organization; (b) is not qualified to
represent a tool- and die-makers craft unit because it is allegedly will-
ing to represent a unit including production workers, if the Board
should find such larger unit to be appropriate; and (c) was not in com-
pliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act at the time of the filing of the
petition.
With respect to (a), we find, as in Webster Electric Co., supra and
John Oster Mfg. Co., supra, of which cases we take judicial notice,
and on the basis of substantially the same evidence as offered by the
Intervenor herein, that the Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
As to (b), the Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of tool- and die-
makers. Except for one so-called production worker, these are the
only employees working for the Employer at the present time. The
one "production worker" is a recently hired inexperienced individual
who assists the tool- and die-makers as a helper. The Petitioner
indicated that it is prepared to represent this "production worker"
if the Board includes him in the unit with the tool- and die-makers. It
is apparent that the "production worker" is actually a helper who
properly belongs in the same unit with the tool- and die-makers. The
unit as found appropriate herein thus includes all the Employer's em-
ployees. No severance problem is involved. Moreover, the fact that
a craft union may also represent production and maintenance work-
ers would not disqualify it from seeking severance of a craft which
it traditionally represented.'
As to (c), we find that the fact that a member of the Petitioner was
appointed to collect dues at 1 or 2 meetings of the Petitioner, in the
temporary absence of the regular financial secretary, did not make
4 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
5 In Remington Rand, Inc, 109 NLRB 622, footnote 7, the Board rejected a similar
argument made against the Intervenoi's international. The Board said • "Representation
of these employees [tool- and die makers and modelmakers] by the Petitioner [IAM] is
not precluded, as contended by the Intervenor, by the fact that the Petitioner represents
other employees of the Employer on it plantwide basis, or by the fact that the Petitioner
also represents employees other than machinists elsewhere."
The Intervenor's request for oral argument on this point is'demed as the record, includ-
ing the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
LEONARD VALVE COMPANY 1349
such individual an officer who was required to comply with Section
9 (h) of the Act. We are administratively satisfied that the Peti-
tioner, at all times material, was in compliance with the filing re-
quirements of the Act.
For the reasons heretofore stated under (a), -(b), and (c), we here-
by deny the Intervenor's motion to dismiss.
3. The Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that, pending adjudication of several civil suits charging the Peti-
tioner with the illegal seizure of the Intervenor's assets, there cannot
be a free choice of representatives. For the reasons more fully stated
in Webster Electric Co., supra, we find no merit in the Intervenor's
contention and we hereby deny the motion.
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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All tool- and die-makers and their apprentices and helpers 6 at the
Employer's Racine, Wisconsin, plant, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
9 This classification includes the one alleged production employee.
Leonard Valve Company and District 64, International Associ-
ation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4123.
December 12, 1955
DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
entered into between the parties and the Regional Director for the
First Region, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director among the em-
ployees at the Employer's Cranston, Rhode Island, plant. At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which shows that, of approximately 27 eligible voters, 27 cast
114 NLRB No. 210.