Rostone Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 666 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ROSTONE CORPORATION and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR
Case No. 11-R-971-Decided June 17, 1946
Mr. Fae Patrick, of Indianapolis , Ind., and Stuart, Devol, Branigan,
Ball, and Ricks, by Mr. M. T. Ricks, of Lafayette, Ind., for the
Company.
Mr. Hobert Autterson, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Union.
Mr. Bernard Dunau, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by American Federation of Labor, herein
called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Rostone Corporation,
Lafayette, Indiana, herein called the Company, the National Labor Re-
lations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Clifford L. Hardy, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Lafayette,
Indiana, on April 19, 1946. The Company and the Union appeared
and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing 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 opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Rostone Corporation is an Indiana corporation engaged in the busi-
ness of molding plastics at its plant in Lafayette, Indiana. During the
12 months preceding the hearing , the Company used raw materials, con-
sisting principally of fly ash, lime , shale, and asbestos , valued in excess
68 N L R B, No. 92.
666
ROSTONE CORPORATION 667
of $25,000, over 50 percent of which was shipped to the plant from
points outside the State of Indiana. During the same period of time, the
Company produced finished products valued at more than $250,000, over
75 percent of which was shipped from the plant to points outside the
State.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Labor is a labor organization, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's employees until
the Union 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 Company, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees of the Company, including labora-
tory assistants, quality control men, die repair men, and set-up men,
but excluding office and clerical employees and all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the time of the hearing the Company employed four students as
regular part-time employees. The Company and the Union agree that
these students should be permitted to vote in the election, but they dis-
agree as to whether any similar part-time employees who may be em-
ployed subsequent to the date of the hearing should be allowed to vote.
The Union desires that such other part-time employees be declared
ineligible. The Company maintains that they should be eligible. In
accord with our practice, we shall permit all regular part-time employees
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of
the Direction of Election herein to vote in the election.
f
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties are also in disagreement as to whether employee George
Parker should be permitted to vote. The Union asserts that he should
be allowed to vote, whereas the Company urges that he be excluded
from the balloting. Parker is employed full time by another employer.
He reports to work for the Company at intermittent and irregular in-
tervals apparently as suits his convenience. He works on no definite
schedule and has no fixed place of employment at the plant. We find
that Parker is a casual employee, and, accordingly, we find him in-
eligible to vote in the election)
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has
arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, sub-
ject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
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 Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations - Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Rostone Cor-
poration, Lafayette, Indiana, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among em-
ployees 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 em-
ployees 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 not they desire to be represented by American Federation
of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
I See Matter of Gulf Refining Company ( Tulsa Pipe Line Divxsaon), 64 N. L. R B. 304;
Matter of Wilson and Company, Inc., 58 N . L. R. B. 666 ; Matter of McGann Manufacturing
Company, Inc., 57 N. L. R. B. 246.