The Voss Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 671 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE VOSS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3308.Decided November 13, 1946
Mr. Arthur L. Corbin, Jr., of New Haven, Conn., for the Employer.
Mr. Harold F. Reardon, of Boston, Mass., and Mr. Richard Thurer,
of Stamford, Conn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jack Mantel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New
Haven, Connecticut, on October 14, 1946, before Robert E. Greene,
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
I. TILE BUSTNESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Voos Company is a Connecticut corporation having its prin-
cipal place of business in New Haven, Connecticut, where it is en-
gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cutlery and other
household utensils. The annual value of the raw materials purchased
by the Employer, consisting chiefly of steel, wood, and celluloid, is in
excess of $100,000, substantially all of which are shipped to its plant
from points outside the State of Connecticut. The Employer's
finished products are valued at approximately $200,000 annually, 90
percent of which is shipped to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is 4, labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
71 N. L. R B., No. 106
717734-47-vol. 1-44
671
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
We find, in substantial accordance with the agreement of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer,
excluding office and clerical employees, executives, and all 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 meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIOO
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Voos Company, New
Haven, Connecticut, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
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 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 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 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 not they desire to be represented by
International Association of Machinists, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.