LaSalle Upholstering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 27 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of SAMUEL SEIJK, AN INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS AS
LA SALLE UPIIOL•STERING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED FURNI-
TURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAI, 136B, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3 29.Decided September 25,1946
Mr. Bernard A. Reimer, of Boston, Mass., for the Employer.
Messrs. Francis O'Connor and Michael Tyson, of Boston, Mass., for
the Petitioner.
Mr. F. G. Dunn, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Boston,
Massachusetts, on August, 13,1946, before, Thomas H. Ramsey, hearing
officer. The hearing 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 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Samuel Selhk, an individual doing business as La Salle Upholstering
Company, has a place of business in the city of Boston, Massachusetts,
where it is engaged in the upholstering of chairs and divans. The
Employer purchases approximately $50,000 worth of fabrics, wood,
and miscellaneous materials annually, more than 50 percent of which
is shipped to the Employer's plant in Boston from points outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The , value of the Employer's
finished products exceed $100,000 each year, approximately 50 percent
of which is shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
71 N L R B,No S.
27
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization 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 seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer , including the working foremen, but excluding
executives , office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees.
The Employer takes no position as to the unit, except that it would
exclude the working foremen as supervisory employees.
The Employer 's business is divided i nto two departments , consisting
of a renovating department and a manufacturing department. These
two departments are located on different floors of the same building.
A foreman is in charge of each department , supervising approximately
20 production employees . The foreman in the manufactur ing depart-
ment devotes approximately 50 percent of his time to production work.
The remainder of his time is spent taking care of customers in the
Employer 's absence and laying out work for the other production
employees . The foreman in the renovating department devotes most
of his time to production work, but also directs and supervises the work
of the other employees in his department . Both foremen receive sub-
stantially the same pay as the production workers.
It was the uncontradicated testimony of the Employer and his man-
ager that these working foremen were in complete charge of their
respective departments , and had authority effectively to recommend a
change in status of employees under their supervision . Although it
appears that all actions taken by the working foremen in regard to
personnel are subject to review by the Employer , it is also apparent
that in a plant with approximately 40 employees located on two dif-
ferent floors , the Employer must rely upon the recommendations of
the working foremen in matters pertaining to discipline , discharge,
and other action affecting the status of their subordinate employees.'
I Matter of Jasper Wood Products Company , 66 N L R B. 333.
LA SALLE UPHOLSTERING COMPANY 29
We are of the opinion that the working foremen fall within the Board's
definition of a supervisory employee. Accordingly, we shall exclude
them from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer, excluding executives, office and clerical employees, the working
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 action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Samuel Sehk, an individual
doing business as La Salle Upholstering Company, Boston, Massa-
chusetts, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed clueing 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 i n 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 determine whether or riot they desire to be represented by
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 136B, CIO, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.