Universal Camera Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1944

54 N.L.R.B. 1037 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION and LOCAL UNION
No. 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
Case No. 2-B-4242.-Decided February 2, 194.4
Kaye, Scholer, Fieriman do Hays, by Mr . Harold L. Fierman, of
New York City , for the Company.
Mr. Harold Stern , of New York City, for the I . B. E. W.
Boudin, Cohn & Glickstein, by Mr . H. N. Glickstein , of New York
City, and Protter Bagley , by Mr. Julius E. Bagley, of New York City,
for Local 208.
Mr. Charles W. Schneider , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Local Union No. 3, International,
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the I. B. E. W.,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Universal Camera Corporation, New
York City, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
'Richard J. Hickey, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at New
York City on November 26, 30, and December 1, 1943. The Com-
pany, the I. B. E. W., and United Optical Workers Union, Local
Industrial Union No. 208 (C. I. 0.), herein called Local 208, appeared,
participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Universal Camera Corporation is a Delaware corporation having
its principal office and plant in New York City,, where it is engaged
54 N. L. R. B., No. 153.
1037
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the manufacture of optical lenses and binoculars for the United
States Government.
During the period from November 1, 1942, to October 31, 1943, the
Company purchased raw materials, consisting of glass and fabricated
parts, valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which'aproximately 50 percent
was received from sources outside the State of New York. During the
same period, the Company sold finished products, consisting of optical
lenses and binoculars, valued in excess of $3,000,000, all of which was
delivered to the armed services of the United States.
The Company concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
United Optical Workers Union, Local Industrial Union No. 208, is
a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations , admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
I
On September 1, 1943, the I. B. E. W. notified the Company by letter
that it represented a majority of the Company's maintenance em-
ployees and requested recognition. The Company did not reply.
On March 16, 1943, the Company entered into a written contract
with Local 208, in which the latter was recognized as the exclusive
bargaining representative of certain of the Company's employees.'
This contract has a termination date of March 15, 1944, and is auto-
matically renewable unless notice of a desire to change the agreement
is given by either party at least 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The Company and Local 208 contend that this contract covers the
employees whom the I. B. E. W. seeks to represent. Since the agree-
ment will shortly expire, and for other reasons apparent hereinafter,
we find that the contract does not constitute a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives.
A statement of the Regional Director introduced into evidence at
the hearing, and a statement of the Trial Examiner, indicate that the
I. B. E. W. represents a substantial number of employees in the alleged
appropriate unit."
'The I. B. E. W. submitted to the Regional Director and to the Trial Examiner author-
ization cards, 1 of which was undated, and the remainder dated in August 1943, apparently
indicating that the I. B. E. W. has been designated as their bargaining agent by 33 out of
34 employees in the alleged appropriate unit. Local 208 submitted no evidence of repre-
sentation, but relies upon its contract to establish its interest.
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 1039
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; THE DETERMINATION OP REPRESENTATIVES
The I. B. E. W. contends that all maintenance mechanics, mainte-
nance mechanics' helpers, and carpenters, constitute an appropriate
unit. The Company and Local 208 contend (1) that the employees in
the I. B. E. W. unit are covered by the existing contract; and (2) that
such employees do not constitute an appropriate unit because (a) they
properly belong in an industrial unit, and (b) the I. B. E. W. unit en-
compasses two groups of maintenance employees, "optical" and "build-
ing," having nothing in common with each other.
The evidence discloses that the maintenance employees in the Com-
pany's plant are divided into two groups: optical and building. The.
two groups have separate offices and different supervisors. Both are
independent of the production departments. .Generally the optical
maintenance men are engaged in the maintenance of machines in the
optical department (that department of the plant which manufactures
lenses and prisms for binoculars), while the building maintenance men
are engaged in structural repairs and maintenance of the premises.
The optical maintenance work consists of millwrighting, plumbing,,
carpentry, and electrical work; building maintenance mainly of car-
pentry and painting. However, despite the general distinction be-
tween the two groups, and although the Company and Local 208'
contend to the contrary, the record discloses that the optical mainte-
nance men work all over the plant and do building maintenance work,
and that the building maintenance group on occasion will assist in
optical maintenance work.
On December 15, 1941, and January 29, 1942, consent elections were.
held among the Company's employees. Both elections were won by
Local 208. Although neither consent election agreement definitely
described the unit upon which. the election was based, it seems clear
from the record that eligibility to vote was confined to production
employees, and that no member of either maintenance group voted in
either election, despite the fact that both groups were in existence
at that time.
On March 16,1942, the Company executed a contract with Local 209
recognizing the latter as the exclusive bargaining representative for
"factory employees who are now employed in the binocular depart-
ment, optical department and the fabrication units," excluding super-
visory employees.
In December 1942, the maintenance employees applied for member-
ship in Local 208. By formal vote at a regular meeting the members
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Local 208 refused to accept their applications and declined to admit
them. In March 1943, the present contract was signed between the
Company and Local 208. Thereafter the maintenance employees
signed application cards for the I. B. E. W.
It is apparent from the record, and we find, after full consideration
of all the facts, that the maintenance employees were not eligible to
vote in the 1941 and 1942 elections, and were not intended to be covered
by either the 1942 or the 1943 contract.
Under the circumstances presented, the maintenance employees could
function either as a separate bargaining unit, or as part of a plant-wide
unit. We shall therefore make no final determination at this time as
to the appropriate unit, but shall direct an election among the em-
ployees in the voting group set forth below, subject to the limitations
and additions hereinafter noted. We interpret Local 208's contentions
at the hearing as an affirmation that Local 208 will now accept the
maintenance employees as members and accord them all the privileges
normally attaching to that status. Upon the basis of that assumption 2
and in view of the contractual relationship between Local 208 and the
Company, we shall accord Local 208 a place on the ballot, despite the
fact'that it submitted no evidence of present representation among the
maintenance employees. I
If a majority of the employees voting in the election choose the
I. B. E. W., they will constitute a separate unit for bargaining pur-
poses; if they choose Local 208 they will thereby have indicated their
desire to become part of the unit of factory employees now represented
by Local 208.3
There remains for consideration several groups of employees, as to
whom the parties are in apparent dispute.
Machinists: The Company employs some seven or eight machinists
who make jigs, tools, and fixtures for production work. It is not clear
from the record to which department they are attached. The
I. B. E. W. wishes to exclude the machinists; the Company and Local
208 would include them in the industrial unit. The nature of the
machinists' work allies them more closely with the production than
with the maintenance group. They will therefore be excluded.
Porters: There are some nine male and female porters under the
jurisdiction of the optical maintenance department, whom the
I. B. E. W. would exclude. They are apparently messengers. Local
208 stated, with reference to the porters, that it was "standing on its
contract." The Company indicated no position. We shall exclude the
porters.
Supervisors: All parties agreed that supervisory employees with
authority to effect changes in-the status of employees or effectively
2 Cf. Matter of Bethlehem-Alameda Shipyard, Inc, 53 N L. R. B 999.
' Matter of Wilson Packing Company, 40 N. L. It B. 916; 41 N. L. R. B. 905.
UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORPORATION 1041
recommend such action should be excluded from any appropriate unit.
They did not, however, indicate their position with respect to specific
employees. In the optical maintenance group the supervisors falling
within the above definition are the plant engineer, three assistant engi-
neers, and Barkins. Barkins is in charge of maintenance procure-
ment, acts as an assistant engineer, and exercises the same authority.
All will be excluded, as supervisory employees.
At the time of the hearing, Frank Caviola was temporarily acting
as an assistant engineer. Normally, he is an ordinary maintenance
mechanic. Caviola's right to vote in the election will depend upon
whether he is still' occupying a supervisory position on the eligibility
date hereinafter designated.
Albert Antonacchi is the chief supervisor of the building mainte-
nance men. He will be excluded. There is some suggestion that
Louis Kaplan and Eugene Schwartz, building maintenance employees,
may be supervisors. However, the record does not afford an adequate
basis for determining their precise status. Their eligibility to vote
in the election is therefore made dependent upon whether they fall
within the category of supervisory employees as defined hereinafter.
In accordance with the foregoing, we shall direct that the employees
eligible to vote in the election to be conducted shall be all maintenance
mechanics, maintenance mechanics' helpers, and carpenters, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and addi-
tions set forth in the Direction, and excluding machinists, porters, and
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action.
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 Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DnmCTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Universal Camera
Corporation, New York City, 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 Second 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 the em-
ployees of the Company in the voting group designated in Section IV,
567900-44-vol. 54-67
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 vaca-
tion 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 any who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and who have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the election,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by Local Union
No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or by United
Optical Workers Union, Local Industrial Union No. 208, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, or by neither.