De Laval Separator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 1039 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY and OFFICE EM-
PLOYEES UNION #112, OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL
In the Matter of DP LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY and OFFICE EM-
PLOYEES UNION #112, OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL
Cases Nos . 2-RD516 and ,9-R-5655, respectively.Decided September
20, 1945
McLanahan, Merritt c Ingraham, by Messrs. Burgess Osterhout
and H filer Connell, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Howard Coughlin, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by Office Employees Union #112, Office
Employees International Union, AFL, herein called the Union, alleg-
ing that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of De Laval Separator Company, Pough-
keepsie, New York, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board consolidated the cases 1 and provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Cyril W. O'Gorman, Trial Ex-
aminer. The hearing was held at Poughkeepsie, New York, on June
28, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues.
At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition in Case
No. 2-R-5516. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion
for the Board. For the reasons stated in Section III, below, the
motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded an oportunity to file briefs with the Board.
1 During the course of the hearing , the Union requested permission to withdraw its peti-
tion in Case No. 2-R-5655. Permission is granted and the cases are hereby severed.
63 N. L. R B., No. 159.
1039
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
De Laval Separator Company is a New Jersey corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture of cream separators, milking machines,
oil purifiers, industrial centrifugal machines, and war materials. The
Company maintains its principal offices in New York and Chicago;
however, its main plant is located in Poughkeepsie, New York, and it
is with that plant that this proceeding is concerned. The principal
raw materials used by the Company consist of steel, copper, pig iron,
and tin. During the past year the Company used raw materials ex-
ceeding $1,000,000 in value, approximately 75 percent of which was
shipped to its New York plant from sources located outside the State
of New York. During the same period the Company manufactured
finished products valued at more than $1,000,000 about 66 percent of
which was shipped to places located outside the State of New York.
At the present time approximately half of the Company's operationsl
are devoted to the production of war materials.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Office Employees Union #112, Office Employees International
Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 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 certain of its employees
until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
The Company moved to dismiss the petition in Case No. 2-R-5516
on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the Union has
a substantial interest in the unit for which it petitioned in that case.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Union does represent a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate." The Com-
pany's motion is therefore denied 3
2 With respect to Case No . 2-R-5516, the Field Examiner reported that the Union sub-
mitted 127 membership application cards which were checked against the Company's pay
roll . There are 414 employees in the unit petitioned for The cards were dated as
follows : January 1945-16; February 1945-22; March 1945-8; and 81 were undated.
8 See Matter of H. G. Hill Stores , Inc., Warehouse, 39 N. L. R. B. 874 , and subsequent
cases. -
AE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY 1041
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in agreement with the stipulation of the parties, that all
office and clerical employees of the Company including checkers, but
excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, and further excluding
the following employees :
Department Position
Cashier pay-roll clerk- confidential
Drawing room draftsmen and drafting room
checker
Patternmaker patternmakers
Executive offices draftsman
Standards supervisors, special standard set-
ters, and standard setters
Experimental chemical engineer, chemist metal-
lurgist, chemists, design and de-
velopment engineers, develop-
ment engineers, draftsmen,
process laboratory assistant
Guard service sergeants, guards, messenger es-
corts, and watchmen
Printing compositor, imposing stoneman,
monotype keyboard operator,
monotype caster, pressmen,
stitching and looping man
Engineering and methods tool engineers, methods
Tool engineering and design draftsman, tool designers, tool
design checkers, and tool esti-
mator
Precision equipment project supervisor, project engi-
neers
Personnel salary statistician
Timekeeper and checking division supervisors
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot amol}g the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion 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 Rela-
tions 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 Laval Sep-
arator Company, Poughkeepsie, 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 pre-
-ceding the date of this Direction , including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quite or been dis-
charged 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 Office Employees Union #112, Office Employees In-
ternational Union , AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining.