Farrington Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1051 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of F ARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and LODGE 264, DISTRICT 38, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC'-1120?.Decided December 16, 1919
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Leo J. Halloran,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby iffirmed 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, Farrington Employees Asso-
ciation, Inc.,2 claim to represent employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Atherton Street plant,
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, known as Plant No. 2. The Employer
contends that the unit is inappropriate, the only appropriate unit
being an Employer-wide unit consisting of all employees in Plant No.
2 and Plant No. 1, which is also in Jamaica Plain, 1 mile from Plant
No. 2.
I The hearing officer denied a motion to intervene filed by Farrington Guild, Inc., an
organization of employees in a plant of the Employer other than the plant petitioned for
in this case. In view of our disposition of the case, we do not determine the correctness
of this ruling.
2 The Petitioner contends that the Intervenor is not a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act. In view of our disposition of the case, we make no finding on this
point.
87 NLRB No. 91.
1051
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At both plants the Employer manufactures boxes and containers
for watches, jewelry, eyeglasses, and other similar items. Although
each plant operates for the most part as a separate production opera-
tion, there is no significant difference between the products manu-
factured in each plant. , The skills of the employees in both plants
are virtually identical. There is, however, little interchange or trans-
fer.of employees between the two plants.
Each plant has its own superintendent. Both superintendents,
however, are responsible to the Employer's vice president in charge of
production. Each plant has its own employment office, but either
office may hire employees for the other, and both offices are under the
supervision of the Employer's personnel manager. The executive
offices for both plants are in Plant No. 2. All policies, direction, pro-
curement, supply, bookkeeping, pay-roll matters, and labor relations
are handled in these offices for the Employer's business as a whole.
For the past 5 years, there has existed in each plant an employees'
organization which has been primarily concerned with welfare ac-
tivities. In Plant No. 2, this organization, the Intervenor, has from
time to time requested wage increases and other benefits for employees.
No collective bargaining agreement has ever been executed by the
Employer and the employee organizations, but whenever wage in-
creases, or changes in paid holidays or similar conditions of employ-
ment have been granted, they have been applied to the employees of
both plants, regardless of which group made the original request.
In view of the geographical proximity of the two plants, their almost
identical operations, and the common working conditions and uniform
labor policies prevailing in both, we find that a unit limited to em-
ployees in Plant No. 2 is not appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.3
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
3 Boland Manufacturing Company, 83 NLRB 1254 ; Continental -Dian3ond Company, 83
NLRB 1143 ; Geneva Forge, Inc., 76 NLRB 497.