Paragon Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 23 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of PARAGON RUBBER CO .-AMERICAN CHARACTER DOLL
COMPANY and Toy & NOVELTY WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF
THE C. I. O.
Case No., R-571.-Decided March 17, 1938
Rubber Doll Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: con-
troversy concerning representation of employees: refusal by employer to recog-
nize petitioning unit as exclusive representative of its employees-Unit Appro-
priate for Collective Bargaining: production and maintenance employees exclu-
sive of executives, supervisory, clerical, sales and machine shop employees,
porter and engineer; two separate corporate entities treated as one employer;
ownership, control and labor policies identical; production carried on in same
building and in one continuous flow of operations from one company to the
other-Election Ordered: to include those individuals laid off where company
anticipates reemployment.
Mr. Norman H. Edmonds, for the Board.
Mr. Sidney S. Grant, for the Union.
Mr. E. G. Schaeffer, of Holyoke, Mass., and, Mr. Jack Wolff, for
Paragon and American Doll.
Mr. Howard S. Friedman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 13, 1937, United Toy and Novelty Workers Local In-
dustrial Union No. 643,1 herein called the Union, filed with the Re-
gional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) a pe-
tition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Paragon Rubber Cor-
poration,2 herein called Paragon, and' American Character Doll Co.,
Inc.,3 herein called American Doll, and requesting an investigation
and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act. 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
1 The original petition and Order Directing Investigation and Hearing incorrectly
designated the Union as "Toy and Novelty woi kers Organizing Committee of the C. I. 0
2 The petition and amended petition incoi i ectly designated Paragon as "Paragon
Rubber Company, Inc"
s The original petition incorrectly designated American Doll as, "American Character
Doll Co " '
80618-33-, or, v1--3 23
24 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On December 30, 1937, the National 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 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for.an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On January 11, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon Paragon, American
Doll, and the Union.' Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held
on January 17 and 18, 1938, at Easthampton, Massachusetts, before
Samuel H. Jaffee, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board and the Union were represented by counsel, while Paragon
and American Doll were represented by Mr. E.'G. Schaeffer, presi-
dent of Paragon and treasurer of American Doll, and Mr. Jack
Wolff, office manager of both companies. All parties participated
in the hearing and were given full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. During the course of the ]nearing the Trial
Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Paragon Rubber Corporation and American Character Doll Co.,
Inc., are New York corporations with their principal office and
factory at Easthampton, Massachusetts. The two companies form a
unified and integrated enterprise for the manufacture and sale of
.rubber dolls. The same three persons hold all the offices and direc-
torships in both companies, although their positions in the two com-
panies differ slightly. All the common voting stock is held equally
by two of these three persons. The finished product is the result
of participation of both companies . Paragon does the initial work,
taking the raw materials and working them until they form the
rough or "raw" parts of the dolls. Then they are transferred to
American Doll, which finishes them. The plant is so laid out that
there is a continuous flow of operations. , The two companies occupy
the same building and are separated only by a fire door and fire wall.
The two companies employ approximately 184 employees , includ-
ing production , maintenance , supervisory , office and sales employees.
Each company has its own pay roll, but the entire office force and
DECISIONS AND, ORDERS 25
sales force are employed by American Doll. Whenever necessary, at
clerical employee is loaned by American Doll to Paragon.
The entire' output of Paragon is sold to American Doll, the price
being set by the current market. Thus, all the' selling of the finished
product is done by American Doll, sales being made through its sales
office in New York City. Approximately 95 per cent of the finished
product is sold outside the State of Massachusetts.
Representatives of the companies admitted at the hearing that both
were engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Toy and Novelty Workers Local Industrial Union No. 643
is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial!
Organization. The eligibility requirements of the Union are not
clearly disclosed in the record, but it apparently admits to member-
ship production and maintenance employees of the two companies.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 8 and 11, 1937, the Union sent letters to the companies
claiming that it represented a majority of the companies' employees
and asking that it be recognized as the bargaining agency for a
collective agreement. Upon the failure of the companies to reply,
the Union petitioned the Regional office of the Board. Through the
(efforts of the Board, several conferences were arranged between
representatives of the Union and the companies, the last being on
November 15, 1937, at which time the companies for the first time
questioned the Union's claim that it represented' a majority.
A tentative election agreement was drawn up, but no election was
held because the companies insisted that they would not recognize
the Union unless a majority of those eligible to vote cast ballots for
the Union. The Union insisted on its right to bargain if a majority
of those voting chose it as their bargaining agent. At the hearing
the companies denied that the Union represents a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the companies.
IV. THE EFFECT OF I HE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the companies
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and 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.
26 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union claims that all the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the two companies, excluding supervisory employees, ex-
ecutive employees, clerical employees, salesmen, foremen and fore-
ladies, assistant foremen and foreladies, truck drivers, engineers,
firemen, watchmen, machine shop employees, and porters, constitute
a single appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
It states that the machine shop employees and engineers are subject
,to the- jurisdiction of a different- -labor organization. The record
-contains no evidence that such employees -desire" to be included in the
bargaining unit. The companies raised no objection to the unit
sought by the Union.
We have found in Section I above that the two companies form a
unified and integrated enterprise with one central control over man-
agement and labor policies. We conclude, therefore, that employees
of the two companies should be included within a single bargaining
unit.
We find that all the production and maintenance employees of the
two companies, excluding supervisory employees, executive em-
ployees, clerical employees, salesmen, foremen and foreladies, assist-
ant foremen and foreladies, truck drivers, engineers, firemen, watch-
men, machine shop employees, and porters, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit
will insure to employees of the companies the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
There were introduced in evidence at the hearing pay rolls of the
companies for the week ending October 16, 1937, showing approxi-
mately 152 employees within the appropriate unit. The Union
claimed to represent 96 of the 152 employees . Although application
cards of the Union were presented at the hearing , only one card was
introduced in evidence . Opportunity , however, was given representa-
tives of the companies to examine the cards and compare the signa-
tures with those on the pay rolls. After such comparison the
companies raised objection to 47 cards, either on the ground of genu-
ineness of signature or on the ground that the person whose name
appeared on the card was not an employee of the companies.
Under the circumstances we find that the question concerning
representation which has arisen can be resolved only by means of an
election by secret ballot.
All parties indicated willingness to use the pay rolls of the com-
panies for the period ending October 16, 1937, to determine eligi-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 27
bility, subject to certain qualifications. The Union claims that the
names of four persons did not appear on either of such pay rolls,
although they were regular employees, and that these four persons
should be allowed to vote. The testimony at the hearing showed that
the four were in fact regular employees. They shall herein be con-
sidered as employed during the pay-roll period ending October 16,
1937. There may also be some question as to persons whose names
appeared on the pay rolls but who did not receive pay for the par=
titular period. Since the evidence shows such persons to be em-
ployees of the companies, they will be eligible to vote. The com-
panies seek to exclude from voting a number-of persons laid off after
October 16, 1937, because of a seasonal slump in business, who have
found employment elsewhere. The evidence indicates, however, that
the companies anticipate the reemployment of such persons when
business again picks up. We feel, therefore, that such persons should
be considered as -retaining the status of employees who have been
laid off but not discharged.
Subject to the above explanation, those eligible to vote will there-
fore be the employees of the companies within the appropriate unit
during the pay-roll period ending October 16, 1937, excluding those,
who have since quit or been discharged for cause.
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. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Paragon Rubber Corporation and Ameri-
can Character Doll Co., Inc., Easthampton, Massachusetts, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The production and maintenance employees of the companies,
exclusive of supervisory employees, executive employees, clerical em-
ployees, salesmen, foremen and foreladies, assistant foremen and fore-
ladies, truck drivers, engineers, firemen, machine shop employe@s
and porters, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive 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 1, as amended, it is
hereby
28 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board'
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Paragon Rubber Corporation and American Character Doll
Co., Inc., Easthampton, Massachusetts, an election by secret ballot
be conducted within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional, Director for the
First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations, among all the production and maintenance em-
ployees of Paragon Rubber Corporation and American Character
Doll Co., Inc., during the pay-roll period ending October 16, 1937,
excluding supervisory employees, executive employees, clerical em-
ployees, salesmen, foremen and foreladies, assistant foremen and
foreladies, truck drivers, engineers, firemen, machine shop employees
and porters, and exclusive of those who have quit or been discharged
for cause between that period and the date of the election, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Toy and
Novelty Workers Local Industrial Union No. 643 for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
MR. EDWIN S . SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.