Jacoby-Bender, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 337 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of JACOBY -BENDER, INC., EMPLOYER and WATCH &
JEWELRY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 147, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-R-7141.Decided June 20, 19.,7
Mr. Herbert S. Greenberg, of New York City, for the Employer.
Messrs. Morris Borodkin and Caesar A. Massa, of New York City,
for the Petitioner.
Miss Muriel J. Levor, of counsel to the Board. .
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an amended petition 1 duly filed, hearing in this case was held
at New York City, on November 14, 1946, before George Turitz, hear-
ing officer. The Bearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board slakes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Jacoby-Bender, Inc., a New York corporation, having its principal
office and place of business in New York City, is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of metal wrist watch bracelets at New
York City. During the year ending October 19, 1946, the Employer
purchased raw materials, consisting principally of gold-filled flat stock
and wire, valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 66
percent was shipped from points outside the State of New York. Dur-
ing the same period the Employer's sales of its finished products ex-
ceeded $1,000,000 in value, of which approximately 66 percent was
shipped to points outside the State of New York.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
1 The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to disclose the
affiliation of the Petitioner.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 55. 337
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Jewelry and
Novelty Workers International Union, which is affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
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.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner contends that all employees in the polishing depart-
ment at the Employer's New York City plant, excluding clerks, fore-
men, and assistant foremen, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
The Employer opposes a unit so constituted. It contends that all the
Employer's production and maintenance employees, excluding, how-
ever, office and supervisory employees, comprise an appropriate unit
or, in the alternative, this unit with the additional exclusion of the
toolroom employees.
The Employer's plant consists of 2 floors of a building divided into
various departments, each of which is physically separated from the
other by partitions. Each department is headed by a. foreman having
the power to discharge. Hiring is done by the personnel office. The
polishing department includes about 35 employees engaged in polish-
ing, spraying, degreasing, and satining operations under a department
foreman. It usually takes at least 3 to 6 months to train employees
in the required skills, and numerous "juniors" or "beginners" are em-
ployed in this work. Working hours and vacation privileges are uni-
form throughout the factory, and general working conditions are
similar. An incentive system, however, operating in other factory de-
partments, does not obtain in the toolroom and the polishing and plat-
ing departments, making wages relatively lower. Although there is
a limited amount of temporary interchange of employees between the
polishing and other production departments to equalize work loads,
permanent transfers are rare.
There has been no general collective bargaining history among
production employees of this plant. The toolroom employees, how-
ever, for the last 10 years have been represented by the Petitioner
JACOBY-BENDER, INC. 339
herein, and contracts have been executed for them as a group. Al-
though the Petitioner has made efforts to organize all factory employees
on a plant-wide basis, employees outside the toolroom and polishing
department have shown no interest in organization.
In view of the foregoing facts, the present extent of organization,2
and more particularly the departmental bargaining already established
for toolroom employees at the plant, we are of the opinion that em
ployees of the polishing department at this time may constitute an
appropriate unit.3 The dissenting opinion suggests that the unit pro-
posed by the Employer, and not established by the Board at this time,
is the "obviously appropriate" one. We agree that it might well be
appropriate, ultimately on other facts. But we do not accept his view
that it is the only possible appropriate unit, or that the existence of one
alternative automatically excludes all others.
Three clerks, located in the polishing department, are under the
supervision of the purchasing agent and time-study man, who works in
the office and keeps the factory cost records. The Petitioner would
exclude these clerks from the departmental unit. The Employer makes
no contention that they should be included. Since the clerks work
under different departmental supervision we shall exclude them.
We find that all employees in the polishing department at the Em-
ployer's New York City plant, including juniors, beginners, polishers,
degreasers, sprayers, rackers, and satiners, but excluding clerks, fore-
men, and assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Jacoby-Bender, 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, un-
der 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 Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National
2 In Matter of Garden State Hosiery Co , 74 N. L R. B. 318, issued this day, the Board
re-examined and a majority reaffirmed the Board's long standing practice of determining
the appropriateness of a bargaining unit in the light of the extent of organization, where
other relevant factors and safeguards, which we find in the record before us, are also
present. Cf. Matter of Hudson Hosiery Company, 74 N. L. R B. 250, also issued this day.
i Matter of William R. Warner & Co., Inc., 65 N. L. It. B. 1350; Matter of Forest City
Knitting Company, 69 N. L. It. B. 89.
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately 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 , and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls , 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 , to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Watch & Jewelry
Workers Union , Local 147 , CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting :
The record indicates that the duties performed by the employees in
the polishing department are not such as to justify the conclusion that
they constitute a true craft group. Further, the unit finding of my
colleagues is based upon the fact that the Petitioner has been unsuccess-
ful in soliciting membership from a majority of the employees in the
obviously appropriate unit proposed by the Employer. Accordingly,
for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Garden
Btate Hosiery Co.,4 I would dismiss the petition herein.
It seems to me that the so-called "extent-of-organization" doctrine
cited by the majority is particularly objectionable in this case. The
11 production and maintenance departments in the Employer's plant
are manned by only approximately 2.50 rank and file workers, all of
whom, with the possible exception of the toolroom employees, are
unskilled manual workers. The majority's decision herein indicates
that the Board approves the organization of this small plant depart-
ment by department, with the possible result that 11 separate units
represented by different and competing unions may eventually be
established. In my opinion a, policy conducive to any such eventuality
is utterly incompatible with the fundamental objectives of the Act
seeking to establish harmonious labor relations. The similarity of the
skills and working conditions of all of the Employer's rank and file
unskilled workers make highly impractical their segregation into the
small units contemplated by my colleagues.
174 N. L R B 318, issued this day.