Cramet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 975 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

CRAMET, INC.
V. THE REMEDY
975
Having found that the Respondent discharged Teresa Perez and Esperanza Min-
jarez because of their concerted activities, thereby interfering with , restraining, and
coercing employees in their right to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid
and protection , it will be recommended that the Respondent offer to each of them
immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a'substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges , if any, and make
each whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of Respondent's dis-
crimination against her, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which
she normally would have earned from Noveniber 16, 1954, to the date when, pur-
suant to the recommendations herein contained , Respondent shall offer them rein-
statement , less the net earnings of each during said period . Loss of pay shall be de-
termined in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289;
N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co ., 344 U. S. 344. It is further recommended that
Respondent make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records as
required in order to facilitate the computation of the amount of back pay due. F. W.
Woolworth Company, supra.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Teresa
Perez and Esperanza A. Minjarez because they engaged in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection , Respondent in-
terfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, and Respondent has thereby engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. By engaging in such discrimination , thereby discouraging formation of and
membership in labor organizations , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Cramet, Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
tional Union , CIO,' Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-2992. May 31,
1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr.,
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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.2
1 Throughout the instant proceeding , Petitioner was designated as United Gas, Coke &
Chemical Workers of America, CIO . Subsequent to the hearing , it changed its name and
moved to amend the petition and other formal papers to show its present name , set forth
above. No objection having been made thereto , we grant the motion.
2 United Automobile Workers of America, AFL , was permitted to intervene and was
represented at the hearing After the close of the hearing , International Chemical Workers
Union , AFL, moved to intervene . Since , at the time of the hearing it had such a repre-
112 NLRB No. 129.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
The Employer , a wholly owned subsidiary of The Crane Company,
is a producer of titanium sponge. Approximately 90 percent of its
output will eventually be used for defense purposes.
Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees,
including pilot plant employees , plant clericals , and janitors , but ex-
cluding all office clerical and professional employees, supervisors, and
guards. The Intervenors agree with Petitioner 's unit request. The
Employer would exclude the pilot plant employees and the plant
clericals.
The Employer contends that an election should not be held at this
time because its plant is in the process of construction and it does not
now have a substantial and representative complement of employees.
The Employer is currently perfecting methods of producing
titanium tetrachloride and titanium sponge. It is crushing and
storing some sponge for shipment pursuant to its Government con-
tract but most of its operations have been confined to training activi-
ties and experimental runs. The two pilot plants have been com-
pleted and are in operation . One of the production buildings is par-
tially finished and in use . It will be completed in June. The re-
maining three production buildings will not be completed until
August 15 , 1955. Most of the equipment will be installed at that
time. However, it is anticipated that certain equipment will not be
delivered , and all facilities will not be available , until the beginning
of next year.
When in full operation , the plant will have 700 to 750 production
and maintenance employees and approximately 30 pilot plant em-
ployees in at least 29 job classifications within the unit sought. At
the time of the hearing , there were employed 96 production and
maintenance employees and 45 pilot plant employees in only 10 of
the classifications . According to the Employer 's projected hiring
schedule, it will have about 300 production and maintenance em-
ployees by November 1955 . The Employer does not expect full em-
ployment until June or July of 1956 . Moreover , the Employer
anticipates the transfer of some pilot plant employees to production
departments.
It is clear that the Employer does not presently have a representa-
tive and substantial complement of employees in the proposed unit
and that such a complement is not contemplated until the late fall
of this year . We accordingly find that the petition herein is premature
sentative interest in the employees affected by the investigation as to have been entitled
to notice thereof, we shall grant the motion Tice Muted Boat Service Corporation. 55
NLRB 671
FOX MANUFACTURING COMPANY 977
and shall dismiss it without prejudice to the filing of a new petition
when the Employer has a representative and substantial working
force.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3Individual Drinking Cup Co, Inc , 101 NLRB 1751 , A. 0. Smith Corporation , Air Frame
Component Division , 100 NLRB 1379.
Fox Manufacturing Company and United Furniture Workers of
America, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-2994. May 31, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton,
Jr., 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.2
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties are in substantial agreement as to the unit except that
the Petitioner would exclude 6 individuals as supervisors and 3 watch-
men as guards, all of whom the Employer would include as employees.
Holding, called the "assistant upholstery foreman," is the senior
upholsterer working under the supervision of the upholstery depart-
ment foreman. Taylor, called the "assistant cutting room forelady,"
is a full-time cutter working under the direction of the cutting room
foreman. Sawyer, called the "car loading foreman," is a full-time
worker and No. 1 carloader working under the supervision of the ship-
ping department foreman. Hester, called the "assistant finishing
room foreman," is a utility man, who, under the direction of the finish-
ing department foreman, mixes and supplies materials for the plant
operation and performs repair work. Gray, called the "finishing
I We find no merit in the Employer 's contentions that: ( 1) The Board should determine
the authenticity of the Petitioner 's showing of interest by verifying the authorization
cairls submitted , and (2 ) the unfair labor practice charges pending against it must be
waived not only by the charging party, the Petitioner , but also by the alleged discriminatee.
The Board has consistently held that the showing of interest and the compliance with its
waiver requii ements are administiative matters not litigable by the parties Charles A
Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536 at 537 , Wells Dairies Cooperative , 109 NLRB 1450
Moreover, we are administratively satisfied as to the adequacy of the showing of interest
and as to the propriety of the waiver
3 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
112 NLRB No 128.