Sargent & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 918 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of SARGENT & COMPANY,' EMPLOYER and PLAYTHINGS,
JEWELRY & NOVELTY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 1-RC-230.-Decided August 11, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER'
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this, case was held at New
Haven, 'Connecticut, on April 15, 1948, before Thomas H. Ramsey,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man
panel consisting of the undersigned Members Houston, Murdock, and
Gray.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.2
3. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of locks and numer-
ous other hardware products at its plants in New Haven, Connecticut.
In February 1948, it purchased the equipment, inventory, and right
to manufacture the products of William Schollhorn Company, herein
called Schollhorn. At the same time, it leased 3 the plant, located only
one city block from the other buildings of the Employer, at which
Schollhorn had manufactured pliers and hand tools.
Before the Employer purchased this plant, the production and
maintenance employees of Schollhorn were represented by the Peti-
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO, which is the bar-
gaining representative of the Employer 's production and maintenance employees, was
served with notice of hewing in this case, but did not appeal
3 The lease was for a term of 10 years, but the Employer was given the right to terminate
it after 5 years, and to sublet the premises.
78 N. L. R. B., No. 128
918
SARGENT & COMPANY 919
tioner.4 The Petitioner, seeking continued representation of these
employees, contends that (1) the employees at Schollhorn have a his-
tory of separate collective bargaining, and (2) there has not yet been
an integration of Schollhorn's operations with those of the Employer.
The Employer opposes the Petitioner's request on the ground that
there has been integration to such an extent that only an Employer-
wide production and maintenance unit is appropriate.
With respect to the Petitioner's first contention, the separate bar-
gaining history is not a significant factor where, as here, it was the
result of separate ownership of the plants involved, and not because
the Schollhorn employees had expressed a preference for a plant-wide
unit as against a unit of all the Employer's production and mainte-
nance employees. We therefore find no merit in this contention.
With respect to the Petitioner's second contention, it appears that
the Schollhorn operations have been integrated to a substantial degree
with the other operations of the Employer. The Employer's manu-
facturing operations are conducted through divisions, each of which
makes a series of related products, and through an Originating Divi-
sion, which supplies the manufacturing divisions with parts and semi-
finished products. The Employer contends that Schollhorn is now
merely another of its manufacturing divisions, producing pliers and
cutting tools, products which, for the most part, the Employer had
not previously manufactured.
Schollhorn's clerical and office functions no longer exist separately,
and the office personnel has been absorbed by the Employer. Similarly,
Schollhorn's Accounting, Pay-roll, Timekeeping, Purchasing, and
Sales Divisions, and part of its Maintenance Division, have been
absorbed by their counterparts in the Employer's organization. All
the Schollhorn employees have been assigned clock numbers, in the
same sequence as the other employees of the Employer, and they have
similar working conditions and benefits.
The nature of the work performed in all the Employer's manufac-
turing divisions, including Schollhorn, is similar. In each of them,
the principal operations are drilling, milling, turning,-polishing, plat-
ing, and assembling. Because of this similarity of operation, it has,
always been the Employer's practice to transfer employees from one
division to another, scheduling production at each division in accord-
ance with orders, to avoid building up excessive inventory. In 1947
there were 400 such transfers. The Employer has made its production
scheduling and its employee transfer system applicable to the Scholl-
horn operation. In the 7 weeks between the acquisition of Schollhorn
' The contract between Schollhorn and the Petitioner was, by its terms, not transferable,
and the obligations thereunder were not assumed by the Employer.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the hearing in this case, there were 10 transfers from Schollhorn
to the other divisions of the Employer and 4 transfers from such divi-
sions to Schollhorn, and the Employer states that there will be more
transfers, from day to day, as further changes in its production sched-
ule are made.
It is true that the integration of Schollhorn into the Employer's
operations is, not yet complete in that (a) Schollhorn's tooling and
punch press departments are still separate, although steps have been
taken toward their absorption in the near future, (b) the pliers for-
merly manufactured by Schollhorn are still sold under the old brand
name, and (c) the Schollhorn operations are still conducted in a sepa-
rate building, the Employer estimating that it will require about 3
years to complete the transfer of operations from the Schollhorn build-
ing. However, it is clear that there are no significant differences be-
tween Schollhorn and the remainder of the Employer's manufacturing
divisions, and such differences as do exist are being progressively
removed.
We therefore find that a separate unit of employees in the Em-
ployer's Schollhorn manufacturing division is not appropriate. Ac-
cordingly we find that no question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer in a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we shall dismiss the
petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of the employees of Sargent R Company, New Haven, Connecticut,
filed by Playthings, Jewelry & Novelty Workers International Union,
CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Order.