G. Levor & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 574 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of G. LEV OR & COMPANY , INC. and LOCAL 202, INTERNA-
TIONAL Fun AND LEATHER WORIKERS ' UNION , C. I. O.
Case No. 3-I?-609
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
'CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 16, 19!^!^ , ,
On September 8, 1943, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of
Elections issued by the Board herein on August 12, 1943,1 an election
by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Third Region (Bufl?alo, •New York).
On September 11, 1943, acting pursuant to the Rules and Regulations
of the Board, 'the Regional Director, issued and duly served upon .the
parties his Report on Ordered Election:
The Report on Ordered Election shows that of approximately 278
eligible voters, 252 cast valid ballots, of which 99 were for Local-
202, International Fur and Leather Workers', Union, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 152 were for Adirondack
Leather Workers' Union, 1 ffor neither, and 9 were challenged ballots.
Thereafter Local- 202, International Fur and Leather Workers'
Union, C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., filed Objections to the con-
duct of the election, contending that the Company had committed
unfair labor practices and that both the Company and Adirondack
Leather Workers' Union, herein called the Independent, had inter-
fered with the rights of the employees freely to choose a bargaining
representative. In his Report on Objections, the Regional Director
found that the objections raised substantial and material issues and
recommended that the Board direct a hearing thereon.
On November 27, 1943, it appearing that the objections'filed by the
C. I: O. raised substantial and material issues with respect to the
election, the Board ordered a hearing on the objections considered in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Regional Director's Report on Objections.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing on said
objections was held from February 10 to 17, 1944, at Gloversville, New
151 N L R B 1248
56'N L R B, No 110
574 1
G. LEVOR & COMPANY, INC. 575
York, before Josef L. Hektoen, Trial Examiner. The Board, the'
Company, the C. I. 0., and the Independent appeared, participated,
and were afforded full opportunity'to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. A
stipulation of the parties correcting the transcript of the testimony
in certain particulars is hereby approved and incorporated as part
of the record-herein. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
-'.Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
SUPPLEDIENTAL -FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The claim that the Independent was favored and the C: I. O. denied
an opportunity to electioneer in, the plant
Throughout the progress of the campaign which preceded the elec-
tion, each of the several unions involved distributed literature in the
plant, both during and before working hours. Ahhough the Com-
pany had announced to the Independent and the C. I. O. that no elec-
tioneering would be allowed in the plant on Company' time, it took no
action with respect to such distributions. The evidence reveals no
favoritism in the matter; either in behalf of the Independent or the
C. I. O. We find that the objection based on the alleged favoritism
of'the Company with regard to electioneering in the plant, has no
substantial support in the evidence as contained in the present record.
The objection is, accordingly,- overruled.
2. The claim thatt Max Fisemnan, Merle Can field and Nwnzio di Caprio
are supervisory employees and manifested anti-C. I. O. bias during'
the pre-election pemiod- ' -
-Max Eiseman works -in the tanning department where he is em-
ployed asp a "clioreuian." His duties consist of putting skins, in drums,
mixing and feeding chemicals into the drums, and watching the con-
trols while the drums are in operation. In addition thereto, he also
performs general work such as cleaning up after the day's work is
over. With him as helpers in the loading and feeding of the drums
are three employees to whom he relays and interprets the instructions
of the-forenlan of the department' with respect to the operation of the
drums in.question. The only other evidence of control -exercised by
Eiseman is to the effect that lie occasionally "reminds" the men-working
with him as to the feeding of the drums and tells them to prepare
water-iii connection therewith.2 While Eiseman receives 7 cents per
2 Eiseman testified that the men helping him on the (hunts generally do their work with-
out directions, that :n the e^.ent of any real difficulty in the op'ration of the drums he
would not attempt to straighten out the situation himself, but would coneult the foreman of
the department and lot hmi decide N hat should be done under tie circumstances
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD _
hour more than the men associated with him on the drums; this. is
due to the fact that he handles dangerous chemicals used in preparing
the solutions required for the drum operations. In view of the above
evidence, we find that Eiseman is not _ a supervisory employee for
whose activities in connection with the election the Company may prop-
erly be held responsible.
Merle ;Canfield works in the beam shop where he does general work
including the washing and trimming of skins and the operation of
the fleshing machine. In addition thereto, Canfield also handles chem-
icals in connection with the "sulphite treatment" and for this par-
ticular duty receives an added hourly compensation similar to that
received by Eiseman. The only evidence of supervisory capacity had
to do with alleged invitations by Canfield to various -'employees to
work overtime and the giving of` instructions or directions to such
employees when engaged in overtime operations during the absence
of the foreman- for the department. While four witnesses for the
C. I. 0. testified that Canfield had asked them on different occasions
if they would like to work overtime 'and had directed overtime opera-
tions, Canfield denied that he had ever directed any employees to
work overtime or assumed that he possessed such supervisory author-
ity. He further testified that he did not direct any of the overtime
operations as the latter cover routine matters requiring no supervision.
The testimony of Canfield is supported by that of Albert Ruf, the
department foreman, together with the testimony of four other em-
ployees in the beam shop. We find that the weight of the evidence
does not support the allegation of the C. I. 0. that Canfield is a; super-
visory employee; neither does it establish that he has assumed the atti-
tude of a supervisory employee in the sense that his activities with
regard to the election may be attributed to the Company in the present
instance.3
Nunzio di Caprio, who is "leader" of the "bull gang," or outside crew,
is an hourly paid worker, who by reason of his experience and skill
receives a slightly higher wage than that received by the other men in
the gang, consisting of between six and nine employees with whom he
works performing the same type of manual labor as the other members
of the crew. While di Caprio admittedly relays instructions from the
foreman, he has no supervisory authority, other than the usual duties of
-leader and has never disciplined any members of the group with which
he has worked. We find, accordingly, that di Caprio is not a supervi-
sory employee for whose activities in connection with the election the
Company is responsible.
g The record reveals that both Canfield and Eiseman 'were, after a conference of the
parties, included in the list of employees eligible to vote at the election.
G. LEVOR & COMPANY, INC.- 577
Since we have found that Eiseman, Canfield and di Caprio are not
supervisory employees, we find it unnecessary to consider the activities
of such employees as bearing upon the election. - Upon the basis of the
entire record, we find the,election fairly represented the untrammeled
wishes of the Company's employees and constituted a fair test of the
employees' desires as to representation. For these reasons and in view
of the election results, we shall, in accordance with the motions filed by
the Company and the Independent, overrule the Objections of the
C. I. O. and certify the Independent as bargaining representative for
the employees within the unit heretofore found appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
CERTIFICATION. OF REPRESENTATIVES
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, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Adirondack Leather Workers' Union
has been designated and selected by a majority of all employees of
G. Levor & Company, Inc., Gloversville, New York, excluding execu-'
tives, foremen, assistant foremen, all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, watchmen, firemen, maintenance employees, office employees,
salaried workers, and all clerical employees, as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative
of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours bf employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
587784-45-vol 56----38