Rushville Metal Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1146 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RUSHVILLE METAL PRODUCTS, INC., and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-946. February 15, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry Berns,
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 this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer i is an Indiana corporation located at
Rushville, Indiana. Its purchases for the period of November 1,
1952, to October 30, 1953, amounted to about $1,800. Its sales
and services during the same period amounted to about $49,000.
Virtually all its business was transacted within the State of
Indiana with 4 Indiana companies, each of which annually
sells outside the State of Indiana goods valued in excess of
$ 100,000. These 4 companies are American Lawnmower
Company, Rochester Metal Products, Ray-Glo, Inc., and
Great States Corporation.
The record discloses the following relationship between the
Employer and the other 4 companies to which its sales are
made, and for whom its services are rendered. The president
of the Employer, R. S. Kersey, is the sole proprietor of
Rochester Metal Products and the president of the other 3
companies. Kersey owns all or a substantial amount of stock
in each of these companies.' The Employer manufactures
lawnmower handles, machinery, fixtures, and dies. The dies
are shipped to Ray-Glo, Inc.; most of the machinery is shipped
to Great States Corporation; and the lawnmower handles are
shipped to the American Lawnmower Company. Only occasional
sales are made to Rochester Metal Products, which supplies
castings to the Employer and the other 3 companies.
The salary of the Employer's engineer is not charged to the
Employer but is paid by Great States Corporation; the salaries
of the Employer's remaining employees are paid by check
signed by Kersey from the account of Rochester Metal Prod-
ucts. Each of these companies employes the same auditor. All
bookkeeping records for the Employer are kept by the American
Lawnmower Company.
The Employer is presently storing lawnmowers owned by
American Lawnmower Company and valued at more than
1The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Kersey and his wife own all the stock in the Employer He owns all the stock in American
Lawnmower Company and is the sole proprietor in Rochester Metal Products. Although
Kersey as a minority stockholder in Great States Corporation and Ray-Glo, Inc., he testified
that he held a substantial interest in these two companies.
107 NLRB No. 243.
RUSHVILLE METAL PRODUCTS, INC. 1 147
$100,000. Its employees help unload and warehouse the lawn-
mowers, and also ship them for American Lawnmower Company
directly out of the State. During slack seasonal periods, em-
ployees of this Employer perform maintenance and repair work
at the other four companies . All services which are performed
by the Employer for the other companies or by the other com-
panies for the Employer are paid by the respective recipients of
the benefit.
Under these circumstances , including the centralized control
by the same individual of all 5 companies , the extent of that
individual' s ownership in each company, and the interchange
and interrelationship of services among all 5 companies, we
find that the Employer and the other 4 companies constitute a
single integrated enterprise and are, for purposes of deter-
mining jurisdiction , a single Employer.' As the total annual
out-of-State sales of the 5 companies exceed $400,000, we
find, contrary to the Employer 's contention , that it is engaged
in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction.4
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree, and we find, that the following em-
ployees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Rushville, Indiana, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees ,5 and supervisors. 6
5. The Employers' president testified that " some" of the 5
presently laid-off employees would be recalled about January 1,
1954, 2 months after the hearing , but the record does not
indicate when the other employees will be recalled. Those
employees whom the employer has already recalled are of
course eligible to vote. However, there is insufficient evidence
in the record to enable us to determine whether the other laid
3Sandy's 105 NLRB 928; Lee Miller Co., et al., 106 NLRB 527; Price Valley Lumber Co,
106 NLRB 21; Gordon's Jewelry Co., 105 NLRB 709; White Oak Park, et al., 98 NLRB 376;
Industrial Lamp Corporation, 97 NLRB 1021.
41n agreeing to assert jurisdiction here , Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers are not
thereby to be deemed as concurring with the Board's present jurisdictional standards.
5 The parties stipulated, and we find, that Cecil Davis is a professional employee.
6In accordance with the stipulations of the parties, we shall exclude Wayne E McKamey as
a supervisor because he effectively recommends the hire and discharge of employees.
1 148 DECISONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
off employees have a reasonable expectancy of employment in
the near future so as to render them eligible to vote. Under
these circumstances , we shall permit them to vote subject to
challenge.?
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 See Young Manufacturing Company , 92 NLRB 410.
THE LINDE AIR PRODUCTS COMPANY, A DIVISION OF
UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION, APPA-
RATUS PLANT NO. 1' and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , Petitioner.
Case No . 4-RC-2205. February 15, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert B.
Mintz, 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 this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act , for the
following reasons:
The Linde Apparatus Division , Plant No. 1 Employees' Asso-
ciation, the Intervenor herein, and the Employer urge as a bar
to this proceeding their current contract executed September 4,
1952, which expires September 4, 1954 . In support of its posi-
tion that the contract is not a bar , the Petitioner contends that
a schism has occurred in the ranks of the Intervenor thus
causing genuine confusion as to the proper bargaining repre-
sentatives . The Petitioner further urges thatthe Intervenor' is
now defunct and cannot administer - the contract.
The evidence shows that on or about October 12, 1953,
employee Scardena , who headed a group of dissidents dissatis-
fied with the Intervenor , contacted a representative of the Peti-
tioner for the purpose of learning what procedure must be
iThe name of the Employer appears herein as amended at the hearing.
2 The Intervenor , an independent union , was certified by the Board in 1949 and has had
contractual relations with the Employer since that date.
107 NLRB No. 246.