Vincent Bach Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 143 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of VINCENT BACH CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
DISTRICT #15 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
PETITIONER
Case No. 3-RC-24.Decided February 11, 1948
Messrs . S. Sidney Smith and Vincent Bach , of New York City, for
the Employer.
Messrs. Carl S. Carlson and Sam Krieger, of New York City, for the
Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New
York City, on November 28, 1947, before Benjamin B. Naumoff, hear-
ing 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 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Vincent Bach Corporation, a New York corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of musical instruments and parts at its plant in
New York City. During the year preceding the hearing, the Em-
ployer purchased for use in its manufacturing operations raw materials
valued at over $10,000, of which at least 90 percent originated from
points outside the State of New York. During the same period, the
Employer sold finished products valued at over $100,000, of which at
least 75 percent represented shipments to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting
of the undersigned Board Members [ Houston, Murdock , and Gray].
76 N. L. It. B., No. 20.
143
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION •INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent employ-
ees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employ-
ees until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropri-
ate unit.
We find that 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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree generally that a unit of production and mainte-
nance employees would be appropriate. Their sole disagreement re-
lates to a working foreman, Michael Tarasevick, whom the Employer
desires to include in the unit.
Tarasevick is the oldest employee at the plant in point of service.
In rank of authority and responsibility he is subordinate only to the
president and office manager and his hourly pay is 25 percent higher
than that of the most skilled of the shop's production employees. He
spends approximately 50 percent of his time in manual work and the
balance of his time in overseeing the work of the other production
employees. In connection with the latter, he makes recommendations
as to discharges, assignment of personnel, adjustment of grievances,
and lay-off s because of misconduct; he also interviews applicants for
employment and reports on their suitability for work at the plant.
The aforesaid recommendations form the basis of company action in a
substantial number of cases. In addition, requests for pay increases
are decided on the basis of his judgment as to the quality of the
employee's work. In the light of the above, and on the basis of the
entire record, we find that Tarasevick is a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the amended Act and we shall therefore exclude him from the
bargaining unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties and the
above determination, that all production and maintenance employees
at the New York plant of the Employer, including packers and ship-
pers,2 but excluding office, clerical, and professional employees, the
working foreman and all supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for
2 James Cronin and William Ritterhaus.
VINCENT BACH CORPORATION 145
the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Vincent Bach Corporation, New
York City, 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 Second Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
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, 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 District #15 of the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.