Electrical Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, EMPLOYER aiui
LOCAL UNION 1563, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS ( AFL), PETITIONER
Case No. 5-R-2997-Decided March 31. 1948
Messrs. N. L. Flippen and H. M. Pasco , both of Richmond, Va.,
for the Employer.
Mr. Lawson Wimberly , of Washington , D. C., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Rich-
mond, Virginia, on December 19, 1947, before Sidney A. Barban,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Em-
ployer's motion to dismiss the petition on various grounds is hereby
denied, for reasons indicated in Sections II, III, and IV below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS Ole' FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Electrical Equipment Company is a North Carolina corporation,
operating plants in Georgia, North Carolina, and Richmond, Virginia.
The latter plant, which is the only one involved in this proceeding,
is operated separately from the Employer's other plants.
The Richmond plant sells and repairs electrical equipment. The
Employer purchases, for delivery to this plant, approximately $200,000
worth of equipment and supplies annually, of which 90 percent origi-
nates outside of Virginia. The plant's gross income is about $830,000
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting
of the undersigned Board Members [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and
Murdock]
76 N. L. R. B., No. 155.
1060
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1061
annually, derived as follows : $600,000 from sales of new equipment ;
$60,000 from sales of rebuilt equipment; and $170,000 from repairs.
Sales of new equipment outside of Virginia represent approximately
$6000 per year; repairs for firms outside of Virginia represent about
_$850 per year; rebuilt equipment is sold entirely inside the State, but
in some instances the purchasers are manufacturing firms which are
themselves engaged in interstate commerce. A substantial amount
of the intrastate sales are made to manufacturers engaged in com-
merce; and a substantial volume of the Employer's repair work, also,
is performed for large manufacturers in Virginia who are engaged in
interstate commerce.
Contrary to the Employer's contention, we find that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act.2
If. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the IBEW,
which in turn is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
The Petitioner claims to represent employees of the Employers.;
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Employer argues that the petition should be dismissed because
the record does not disclose that the Petitioner has qualified under
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The official records of the
Board indicate that Petitioner has complied with the requirements of
those sections. Therefore, for the reasons stated in Matter of Lion Oil
Company,' the Employer's motion to dismiss on this ground is denied.
IN. L. R. B v Fainblatt , 306 U S 601; N L. R. B V. Cowell Portland Cement Co, 148
F (2d) 237 (C C. A 9, 1945), cert denied , 326 U S 735 ; N. L. R. B v Poultrymen's
Neri,ice Corp, 138 F. (2d) 204 (C. C. A. 3, 1943) ; N. L. it. B. v McGough Bakeries Corp,
153 F. (2d) 420 (C. C. A. 5, 1947) ; N. L R. B v. Schmidt Baking Co , 122 F (2d) 162
(C C. A. 4, 1941).
, The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed for the reasons, among
others, that the record fails to show either that the Petitioner is a labor organization, or
that J C. McIntosh , an International representative of the IBEW , who signed the petition
for the Petitioner , was authorized to do so by the Petitioner or any of its members These
contentions are plainly without merit. McIntosh testified that the Petitioner is a chartered
local of the IBEW admitting to membership employees of the Employer , and existing for the
purposes specified In Section 2 (5) of the Act. He further testified that he was authorized
to file the petition herein both by the membership of the Petitioner and by the president of
the IBEW.
4 76 N. L. R. B. 565.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer also contends, apparently referring to the provisions
of Section 9 (c) (1) (A) of the amended Act,5 that the petition should
be dismissed for lack of any proper showing that the Petitioner insti-
tuted this proceeding in behalf of a substantial number of the em-
ployees involved. This contention is without merit. In proceedings in-
stituted by a labor organization under Section 9 (c) (1) (A) of the
amended Act, as in proceedings under Section 9 (c) of the Act before
it was amended, the petitioner's authority to act in behalf of a ma-
jority, or any given number, of the employees concerned is finally and
conclusively determined by the election, if one is directed by the Board.
At earlier stages of the proceeding the petitioner is required only to
satisfy the Board administratively that it has been designated as bar-
gaining representative by a substantial number of the einployees.e
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
Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all repair service personnel at
the Richmond plant, excluding all salesmen, office and clerical em-
ployees, janitors, and supervisors. The Employer agrees generally
with the foregoing unit but urges the exclusion of eight "G. I.
Trainees."
G. I. Trainees are employed in repair work by the Employer under
an,arrangement with the Veterans' Administration. We find that the
trainees have a sufficient interest to warrant their inclusion in the unit,?
and we shall include them.
The Employer objects to the inclusion of one Crosley in the appro-
priate unit. This employee is regularly part of the repair service
force. He is, according to the testimony of the Employer's president,
one of the oldest employees of the plant and thoroughly experienced.
During the occasional brief absences of the plant superintendent (fore-
man), he takes charge of the repair work. Whenever possible, how-
ever, the Superintendent leaves detailed instructions for Crosley to
5 The cited subsection is one of the amendments to Section 9 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act which became effective on August 22, 1947. Any procedural requirements con-
tained therein are inapplicable to procedural steps taken prior to the effective date and,
therefore , do not retroactively affect the petition in this case, which was filed in May 1947.
See N. L. R B. v . Whittenberg et al , 105 F. (2d) 102 (C. C. A 5, 1947) ; Matter of
Marshall and Bruce, 75 N. L R B. 90 and authorities cited therein . Consequently, we
do not pass upon the Employer 's implied contention that petitions filed under the amended
Section must recite that the Petitioner is acting on behalf of a substantial number of
employees.
6 Matter of Mascot Stove Company, 75 N. L . R. B. 427 ; Matter of Davis Lumber Company,
Inc, 75 N. L. R. B. 851.
7 Matter of Gullett Gin Co., 72 N L. R. B . 1101; Matter of Westbrook Manufacturing Co.,
72 N. L. It. B. 851.
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1063
follow in his absence. Crosley does not have authority to hire or dis-
charge anyone; and the testimony of the Employer's president in-
dicates that any recommendations made by Crosley as to discharge or
other disciplinary action are not given particular weight. We find
that Crosley is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and
we shall therefore include him in the unit.
We find that all repair service personnel s at the Employer's Rich-
mond, Virginia, plant, but excluding all salesmen, office and clerical
employees, janitors, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes 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
purposes of collective bargaining with Electrical Equipment Com-
pany, Richmond, Virginia, 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 the
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
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local Union 1563,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL) for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
8 The Employer urges dismissal because the Petitioner, in its original petition, named
specific categories of employees which do not accord with the Employer ' s classifications.
We find this objection to be without merit in view of Petitioner 's amendment of the petition
at the hearing.