H. Rosenhirsch Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1942

38 N.L.R.B. 619 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of H. ROSENHIRSCH COMPANY and WHOLESALE & WARE-
HOUSE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 65, C. 1.1 0.
In the Matter of MANUFACTURERS HAIR & BRISTLE DRESSING Co.,' INC.
and WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 65, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. R-3340 and R-8341, respectively.Decided January
28, 1942
Jurisdiction : bristle-processing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord union recognition ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees in the bristle-process-
ing plant of the Manufacturers Company, excluding supervisory employees.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed as to a Company which einploys but
one person in the alleged appropriate unit.'
Mr. John J. Cue eo, for the Board.
Mr. Alfred Rosenhirsch, of New York City, for the Rosenhirsch
Company and Manufacturers Company. f
Liebman, Leider c6 Witt, by Mr. D. William. L eider, of New York
City for the Union.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
On August 16 and September 7 and 29, 1941, respectively;."Whole-
sale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., herein called, the
Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New
York City) separate petitions and amended petitions alleging that
questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of H. Rosenhirsch Company, New York City, herein
called Rosenhirsch Company, and Manufacturers Hair i & Bristle
Dressing Co., Inc., New York City, herein called Manufacturers Com-
pany, and requesting investigations and certifications of representa-
tives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 25, 1941, the National
38 N. L. R. B., No. 124. 1 '
619
620 DEICSSTONS OF NATPIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III,- Section 3, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, or-
dered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to con-
duct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice,
and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules
and Regulations, ordered that the two cases be consolidated.
On October 29, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon Rosenhirsch Company,
Manufacturers Company, and upon the Union. Pursuant to notice,
a hearing was held on November 28, 1941, at New York City, before
James C. Paradise, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board, the Rosenhirsch Company, the Manu-
facturers Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing
counsel for Rosenhirsch Company and Manufacturers Company
moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the petitioner had
not shown itself to be a labor organization. The Trial Examiner
denied the motions. The rulings are hereby affirmed. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on
other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 16, 1941, Rosenhirsch Company and Manufacturers
Company filed a joint brief which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
H. Rosenhirsch Company is a Rhode Island corporation with its
principal office and place of business at New York City, where it is
engaged in the purchase and sale of bristles. During the 6-month
period preceding November 6, 1941, the Rosenhirsch Company pur-
chased raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, all of which were
shipped to it from points outside the State of New York. During
the same period the Company shipped over $750,000 worth of mer-
chandise to points outside the State of New York, this figure repre-
senting 80 percent 'of its total sales during said period. The Rosen-
hirsch Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
Manufacturers Hair & Bristle Dressing Co., Inc., is a New York
corporation with its principal office and place of business in New York
H. ROSENHIRSCH COMPANY 621
City, where it is engaged in the business of processing bristles. The
Manufacturers Company receives approximately $30,000 annually for
its processing work and all the bristles processed by it originate in
points outside the United States. About 65 percent of all the work
done by the Manufacturers Company is performed by it for the Rosen-
hirsch Company, 80 percent of the sales of which are concerned with
deliveries of merchandise outside the State of New York.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
It admits to membership employees of the Rosenhirsch Company and
the Manufacturers Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union has requested the Manufacturers Company to recognize
it as the exclusive representative of its employees. The Manufacturers
Company denied this request, stating that it doubted the Union's claim
to a majority. A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in
evidence at the hearing, shows that the Union represents a substantial
number of employees in the alleged appropriate unit.'
It appears from the record that the Rosenhirsch Company employs
but one employee in the alleged appropriate unit at this time and that
no increase in its staff is contemplated. As we have frequently noted,
the Act does not empower the Board to certify collective bargaining
representatives where only one employee is involved.2 Under the
circumstances, no question concerning representation has arisen as to
employees of the Rosenhirsch Company. We shall dismiss the petition
for investigation and certification of representatives with respect to it.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the Manufacturers Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Manufac-
turers Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and
' The Regional Director reported that the Union presented 10 membership application
cards bearing the names of persons who appear on the Manufacturers Company's pay roll
of September 15, 1941. There are approximately 11 employees on this pay roll who are in
the alleged appropriate unit.
2 This conclusion does not mean that a single employee may not designate a representa-
tive to act for him; he had such a right without the Act and the Act in no way limits
the right. See Matter of Luckenbach Steamship Company. Inc., et at. and Gatemen,
Watchmen and Miscellaneous Waterfront Workers Union, Local 38-1 2 4; International
Longshoremen 's Association, 2 N. L R. B. 181, 193.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all employees in the bristle-processing plant
of the Manufacturers Company, excluding supervisory employees, con-
stitute an appropriate unit. The Manufacturers Company did not
contest this allegation.
We find that all employees in the bristle-processing plant of the
Manufacturers Company, excluding supervisory employees, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that
such unit will insure to employees of the Manufacturers Company
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining and otherwise will effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen
with respect to employees of the Manufacturers Company can best be
resolved by the holding of an election by secret ballot. The Union
urges that a pay roll as of the date of its petition be used to determine
eligibility, to vote. No r&son appears, however, why, in accordance
with our usual' custom, the pay roll immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Election herein should not be used for this purpose.
We find that the employees of the Company eligible to vote in the
election shall be those in the appropriate unit who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the
Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions
set forth in the Direction.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. No question concerning the representation of employees of H.
Rosenhirsch Company, New York City, has arisen in a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Manufacturers Hair & Bristle Dressing
Co., Inc., within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. All employees in the bristle-processing plant of the Manufac-
turers Company, excluding supervisory employees, constitute a unit
H. ROSENHIRSCH COMPANY 623
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
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 Rela-
tions Act and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to
ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with
Manufacturers Hair & Bristle Dressing Co., Inc., New York City, 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 of Election,
under the direction and supervision 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, Section 3, of said Rules
and Regulations, among all employees in the bristle-processing plant
of the Manufacturers Company who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elec-
tion, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active military
service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but
excluding supervisory employees and employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented by Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union, Local
65, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the peti-
tion-for investigation and certification of representatives of employees
of H. Rosenhirsch Company, New York City, filed by Wholesale and
Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is,.
dismissed.