General Cigar Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 300 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

i
In the Matter of GENERAL CIGAR Co., INC . and UNITED CIGAR WORKERS
LOCAL 100, AFFILIATED WITH FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL -AND AL-
LIED WORKERS UNION or AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 4-R-1742.-Decided October 18, 1945
Mudge, Stern, Williams di Tucker, by Mr. Milton Black, of New
York City, and Messrs. William G. Roth fuss and Elsner Krout, of
New Brunswick, N. J., for the Company.
Mr. Armand Ramirez , of New York City, for the CIO.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT Or TILE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Cigar Workers Local 105,
affiliated with Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union
of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that'a question af-
fecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of General Cigar Co., Inc., New Brunswick, New Jersey,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Eugene Al.
Purver, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at New Brunswick,
New Jersey, on June 6, 1945. The Company and the CIO 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 . The Trial 'Examiner's rulings made
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 Or FACT
I. THE -BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
General ,Cigar Co., Inc., is a New York corporation with its prin-
cipal offices located in New York City. The Company is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigars. It operates factories in the States
64 N. L . R. B., No. 54.
300
GENERAL CIGAR CO., INC. 301
of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee; it
operates warehouses in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, and Cuba ; it
operates sales offices in Illinois and California. The New BrunsNN ick,
New Jersey, plant is the sole operation of the Company involved in
this proceeding. The.value of the ra\y tobacco-used at the New Bruns-
wick plant in the^^year 1944 exceeded $250,000; all of which-caiiie to it
from points outside the State of New Jersey. Cigars manufactured
at the New Brunswick plant during that year sold for more than
$250,000, of which approximately 93 percent was shipped by it to
points outside the State of New Jersey. At the time of the hearing,
more than 33 percent of the Company's product was manufactured
for, the United States armed forces.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor, Relations Act, and ,we so find.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Cigar Workers Local 105 of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural
and Allied Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial`, Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. TIIE 'QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's inspectors, on
the ground that its inspectors are supervisory employees who cannot
be represented by the CIO because that organization presently rep-
resents:the-Company's, production employees.'
A statement`-of'a`Board agent, intiod`ii6ed' into`evidence"at'=tlie''
hearing;.indicates'that the CIO represents the employees involved,
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
In a consent election held March 8, 1945,2 the CIO was chosen as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's production em-
ployees, excluding, among others, by-consent of the parties, the Com-,
pany's two inspectors. The CIO agreed to the exclusion of the inspec-
tors in `order to='eahedite`}that'"election: The CIO now seeks to includes
the two inspectors in the production unit, or in-the alterative to rep-
'The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted twos application - for-membership
cards , and that there are two employees in the unit sought.
2 Case No 4-R-1677.
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resent them as a separate unit. The Company asserts that 'these in-,
spectors are supervisory employees who ,cannot therefore be included
in the unit of production employees, and that they cannot be repre=,
sented in a separate unit by'the CIO because it represents the pro-
ductioii: employees.
At the New Brunswick plant, each tobacco machine is tended by 4
female employees : a filler feeder, 4-binder layer, and- a wrapper layer;
who together perform the steps necessary to cigar production and
obvious defects and takes approa machine examiner,;hochecks-for,
priate' action, including patching cigars produced" at that machine,.
and breaking. up cigars' which cannot 'be repaired. As the trays of,
500 cigars' are filled, they, are'taken, marked with- the number of the
machine which produced the cigars, to i1, :of the 2 inspectors involved:
These employees give•the cigars-amore detailed examination, reniov-'
ing those to be sent back-to the machine'for'repair and those which are-
rejected altogether. If the total number removed from a tray is small,
the inspector usually reports this fact only"to the machine examiner,
so that, she ,may, check the., machine i for. cleanliness' or- other, factors
which influence quality or maycheck^ tlie, «-ork'of the womanv at her.
machine. If the,total removed. is 10-or more,.it is,cu tomar•y for,-the,
inspector • to report this 'fact to the foreman so that he; can, take, the;
necessary letion to correct the difficulty. When the trays leave the
n;spectors, they go to, t11e packing floor,,where; in the course-of packing,
they are inspected by packers, sorters, tray examiners; and banders,
olio remove any additiohal d'efectin',e and rejected cigars. No action
can beta ken as a ,result of these inspections because the machine which
pr'od'uced the ciga s:is'not`determinaible at that stage.
Prior''to 1938;-'inspect'ors and all employees above the `rank of
inspector were paid a salary,." Since that, year inspectors have been
paid on h: hourlybisis, whereas•all employees the"Coinpany,eonsiders
supervisory continue to be paid a 'salary. All' the Company s produc- ,
tion'and n4aintenance employees, except the women who work the cigar
macliirnes, ,are paid on 'an • hourly basis. The compensation of cigar
machine operators'is ba^sed'on their productivity; thus the pay of the
girls at any one machine is, influenced by the number of "rejects" and
by the number of cigars'sent back for-repair by the inspector. Their
actual wages, howevei• vary' only,slightly,' Arid=i,re 'almost the same,
when, figured on an, hourly basis,' as that, of the'iinspectors. When",aii
inspector is absent, her' place is taken"either by a machine examiner,-,
a- helper, or a forelady.
.;The. inspectors wear tans aprons which-they are required to'purcha'se
from-the Company:..lAicompany witness testified that all the Com-
pany's supervisory employees wear -tan aprons. The machine opera-
GENERAL CIGAR CO., INC. 303
tors wear blue or green aprons. In former years,' when the Company
held supervisors' meetings, inspectors were invited to attend.
Inspectors have no power to recommend hire, discharge, promotion,
demotion, discipline, or change in status of other employees. They
have never-been asked, by a foreman to give their,opinion of the work
of any machine operator. ,It is clearly, their duty only to-inspect.the
cigars,' remove the defective ones, report on cigar production, and
inform the, machine examiner of the errors being•made by her machine
operators. Investigation of the facts in an inspector's report may
result iii changilig i woman's osition:at'the machine;'it appears, how-
ever, that no one has ever`been'tr'ansferred because of errors reported
bye an' inspec'toi-..
From the foregoing we find that-the inspectors are not' 's'upervisory'
.employees within our usual' definition; and that they may;-therefore,
as production workers, properly be included in the previously estab-
lished unit represented by the CIO.3 The Company concedes,that the
CIO represents the inspectors as well as the other employees in the
existing Unit, and that no election is necessary to determine that fact.
There is, therefore, no reason for further investigation of the ques-
tion concerning representation by'way'y way of election or otherwise, and
we sha1'1J dismiss the petition herein.
-,ci . : ; „ ORDER . i , . , .
,Upoilthe basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire:
ri -t
record in the, case, the National Lar.bor' IR.el'ations. Board Hiereb1y orders
that the,petition for investigation,^ind certification of,reptesentatives.
of inspectors of General Cigar Co., Inc., New Brunswick,,New Jerspv,
filed by United Cigar Workers Local 105, ,tfliliatedv ith Food, Tobitcco,
Agricultural and Allied'Woi•kers Union of America, 'CIObeancl'it
hereby is,.dismissed. . '''
MR.' iGE'RAiiv D.•'Rru,LV took no part in the 'consideration of the
above Decision'and`Order. ,
3 Matte of Decatur_ Iron and,Steel Company (Shipbuilding Division) 59 N T, fR R 1070 ,
Matter of Sangamon Electric Company, 59 N L. It. B. 364; Matter of The Blakeslee Forging
Co., 59 N. L. R. B. 17; Matter of Scott & Williams , Incorporated, 58 N. L R. B. 249.
(