The Wolf Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 181 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of TIIE WOLF COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-1710.-Decided June 17, 1947
Fraser, Shumaker, Kendrick, and Winn, by Mr. Alan B. Loop, of
Toledo, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. F. L. Innis, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
111r. Lloyd AS. Greenidge, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chambers-
burg, Pennsylvania, on May 9, 1947, before Henry. Shore, 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. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Wolf Company is a Pennsylvania corporation having its princi-
pal place of business and plant in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, where
it is engaged in the manufacture of flour mill and chemical processing
machinery and in the operation of a foundry. During the past 12
months, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of
$100,000, of which- approximately 20 percent represented shipments
from sources outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During
the same period, the Employer produced finished products valued in
excess of $500,000, of which approximately 57 percent represented
shipments to customers outside the Commonwealth.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 38.
181
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
Confederated Unions of Ainerica, 1 herein called the Intervenor,
is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
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
The parties agree that the appropriate unit should include all pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer, excluding plant
clerical and office clerical employees and all supervisory employees.
They disagree, however, concerning the inclusion of watchmen-fire-
men in the unit. The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner
would include these employees.
The Employer employs three watchmen-firemen who are not uni-
formed, armed or deputized. They are paid at an hourly rate and
work an 8-hour shift daily. These employees are required generally
to keep the boilers going, to check the plant for fire hazards, and to
guard against theft and unauthorized ingress or egress by other em-
ployees or by outsiders. The employee on the day shift devotes prac-
tically all of his time to tending the boilers, spending but little time in
surveillance of the plant premises. He does not make regular hourly
tours of inspection except when the plant is closed. At the end of
the work clay, the main function of the watchmen-firemen then on
duty changes from firing the boilers to performing plant patrol
duties. It is apparent, therefore, that the watchmen-firemen perform
custodial rather than monitorial duties, and, in accordance with our
usual policy, we shall include them in the appropriate unit. 2
'Although the Intervenor did not appear at the hearing , after the close of the hearing
it notified the Board that it represented some of the employees involved in this proceeding
and requested that it be allowed to participate in the election directed herein Thereafter,
it submitted evidence of representation among these employees . The Intervenor 's request
is hereby granted
2Matter of Marsh Furniture Company , CG N L R B 133 , 134-135 ; Matter of Champiogt
Sheet Metal Company , Inc, 61 N. L R B 511, 513.
THE WOLF COMPANY 183
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer including watchmen-firemen, but excluding plant clerical and
office clerical employees 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, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 3
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Wolf Company, Chaln-
bersburg, Pennsylvania, 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 Sixth 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 they desire to be represented by
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &-, Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America, CIO, or by Confederated Unions of
America, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERzOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
3Any participant in the election herein mac, upon its prompt request to and approval
thereof by the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.