De Jur Amsco Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1054 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of DE JIIR A rsco CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 2-R-4836.-Decided May 10, 1945
Mr. Henry H. Silverman, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Frank Scheirer and Miss Mildred Roth, of New York City,
for the Union.
Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of De Jur Amsco Corporation, Long Island City,
New York, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
John J. Cuneo, Trial Examiner. ,Said hearing was held at New York
City, on March 13, 27, and 28, 1945. The Company and the, Union
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. Prior to the commence-
ment of the hearing on March 13, 1945, many postponements were
granted by the Regional Office upon the request of the Union and
the Company. At the commencement of the hearing on March 13,
the Company requested a 2-week postponement which was granted
by the Trial Examiner. During the hearing on March 28, counsel
for the Company moved for a further postponement of approximately
10 days on the ground that he had a personal trip planned which
necessitated his leaving the city, the following morning. The Trial
Examiner denied the motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed.' Other
1 From the record, it appears that the Company received ample notice of hearing that it
could have been competently and adequately represented during the hearing had it so
desired we also note that since the date of the hearing the Company has offered no
further objection to the holding of the hearing in the absence of its representative. See
Matter of Texas Textile Company, 53 N L R B 724 ; Matter of Reliance Manufacturing
Company, 55 N. L. R. B. 981.
61 N. L. R B., No. 178.
1054
Ill J CJR AMSCO CORPORATION 1.055
rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded
an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
De Jur Amsco Corporation, a New York corporation, maintains
plants and offices in Long Island City, New York, and Shelton, Con-
necticut, both of which are involved in this proceeding. The Com-
pany is engaged in the manufacture of electrical, aircraft, and photo
products. The principal materials used in the manufacture of the
products herein mentioned are sheet and rod steel, brass and bakelite
cases, and aluminum. Duringthe yearly period ending on or about
March 27, 1945, the Company purchased raw materials for use at both
plants, valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 75 per-
cent was shipped to said plants from outside the States of New York
and Connecticut. During the same period, the Company manufac-
tured and sold finished products, valued in excess of $1,000,000, of
which approximately 90 percent was shipped from said plants to points
outside the States of New York and Connecticut.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees until the Union
has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 159 designations ; that the
names of 84 persons appearing on the designations were listed on the Company ' s pay roll
of February 8, 1945 ; there are approximately 244 employees in the appropriate unit , and
that 4 of the designations were undated and the balance were dated between June 1944
and March 24, 1945.
1 056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all production, maintenance, and shipping
employees, including store clerks, and the shipping clerk and helper
in the production control department of the Company, in its Long
Island plant, but excluding office and clerical employees, employees in
the pay roll and timekeeping, purchasing, personnel, engineering, pro-
'duction control, executive secretary, works manager, and plant-pro-
tection departments, experimental engineer and production engineer
in the special work department, and such maintenance mechanics and
their helpers employed as painters, electricians, carpenters, steam fit-
ters, plumbers, and operating engineers, foremen and subforemen,
chief inspector, assistant chief inspector and supervisors in the in-
spection department, and all other supervisory employees constitute
an appropriate unit. The Company claims that its Long Island and
Shelton plants constitute a single appropriate unit. It takes no posi-
tion with respect to the specific inclusions or exclusions sought by the
Union.
The Long Island plant, which comprises a majority of the depart-
ments of the Company, was constructed in 1944, and will ultimately
house all of the Company's operations 3 The distance between the
Long Island plant and its other plant at Shelton, Connecticut, is ap-
proximately 70 miles, All raw materials are received and fabricated
in the Long Island plant; some are assembled in the Long Island plant,
and others are assembled in the Shelton plant. Although the Com-
pany's over-all labor policy is the same for both plants, supervision, in
the main, is separate, and there is no interchange of employees between
the two plants. We are of the opinion that the Long Island plant
may constitute a single appropriate unit.
We find that all production, maintenance, and shipping employees,
including store clerks, and the shipping clerk and helper in the pro-
duction control department of the Company, in its Long Island plant,
but excluding office and clerical employees, employees in the pay-roll
and timekeeping, purchasing, personnel, engineering, production con-
trol, executive secretary, works manager, and plant-protection de-
partments, experimental engineer and production engineer in the spe-
cial work department, and such maintenance mechanics and their
helpers employed as painters, electricians, carpenters, steam fitters,
plumbers, and operating engineers, foremen and subforemen, chief in-
spector, assistant chief inspector and supervisors in the inspection de-
partment, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
3 The Company contemplates sale of the Shelton plant in the near future, and is at
present in the process of transferring certain of the Shelton operations to the Long Island
plant.
DE JUR AMSCO CORPORATION 1057
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with De Jur Amsco
Corporation, Long Island City, New York, 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 direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, 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 dur-
ing the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Elec-
trical, Radio and Machilie Workers of America, CIO,4 for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
l The Union requested to appear on the ballot as follows : UE-CIO, and under that United
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, C . I. 0. The request is hereby granted.