Carolina Metal Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 644 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CAROLINA METAL PRODUCTS, INC., E iIPLoYER and IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 1725, PETITIONER
Case No. 34-RC-7.-Decided March 10, 1948
Messrs. Francis H. Fairley and G. S. Patton, both of Charlotte,
N. C., for the Employer.
Messrs. George L. Weasler and Al E. Riley, both of Charlotte, N. C.,
and Mr. Claude W. Fairfield, of Baltimore, Md., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Charlotte,
North Carolina, on December 3, 1947, before Charles E. Slaughter,
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 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Carolina Metal Products, Inc., a North Carolina corporation with
its principal office and only plant located at Charlotte, North Carolina,
is engaged in the manufacture of oil filters and metal stampings.
During the past year, the Company purchased raw materials valued
at approximately $184,000, of which more than 65 percent was received
from points outside the State of North Carolina. During the same
period, the Employer produced finished products valued at $267,000,
of which more than 20 percent was sold and shipped to points outside
the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
1 Puisuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated rts'powers in connection with this ' case to a three -maii'panel consisting
of Members Houston, Murdock , and Gray.
76 N. L. R. B., No. 99.
644
CAROLINA METAL PRODUCTS, INC. 645'
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees 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.
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 parties stipulated at the hearing that the appropriate unit
should consist of all production and maintenance employees, including
leadmen, but excluding professionals, office and factory clericals,
guards, foremen, executives, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
The sole issue between the parties concerns two watchmen, whom the
Employer would include in the unit. The Petitioner seeks to have them
excluded.
Watchmen: The Employer employs two watchmen. The first watch-
man comes on at 3 p. m. and goes off at 11 p. m. The second watch-
man begins at 11 p. m. and works till 7 a. m. The plant operates be-
tween 7 a. m. and 4: 30 p. In. The duties of the watchmen are to make
the rounds of the factory every hour checking doors and windows,
and punching time clocks, a task which takes approximately 10 min-
utes; and in their remaining time, to sweep out the office, fire the boil-
ers, and remove the scrap metal which has accumulated from the day's
operations. The Employer stated that these watchmen spent approxi-
mately two-thirds of their time engaged in maintenance work. They
are neither armed nor deputized, nor do they have any particular
responsibility for the enforcement of rules. Their salary is about 15
percent lower than that of production employees.
Since these individuals spend the greater part of their time doing
maintenance work, we find that they are not "guards" within the
meaning of the Act and shall include them in the unit as maintenance
employees 2 We find, therefore, that all production and maintenance
employees, including leadmen and watchmen, but excluding profes-
sional employees, office and factory clerical employees, guards, foremen,
2 See Matter of Morowebb Cotton Mills Co., 75 N. L. R. B. 987 ; Matter of Johnson City
Foundry ct Machine Works, Inc, 75 N. L R. B. 475, Matter of Swift and Company, 58
N. L. B. B. 657.
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
executives , and supervisors constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses 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 pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Carolina Metal Products, Inc.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, 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 thEy
Regional Director for the Fifth 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 unit found appropriate in
Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately 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 re-
hired 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 represented by International As-
sociation of Machinists, Lodge 1725, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
1 .1