Wadsworth Watch Case Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 487 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter Of WADSWORTH WATCH CASE COMPANY and METAL
POLISHERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
Case No. R-077.-Decided December 10, 1937
Watch Case Industry-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concern-
ing representation of employees : rival organizations ; refusal by employer to rec-
ognize either of rival organizations as exclusive representative of unit desired
by each until proper bargaining agency or agencies are certified by Board;
controversy between rival organizations as to appropriate unit-Units Appro-
priate for Collective Bargaining: (1) craft; (2) industrial; employees in craft
unit eligible for membership in industrial union ; desire and choice of employees
involved-Representatives: proof of choice: membership in unions-Certification
of Representatives: in (1) craft union and (2) industrial unit upon proof of
majority representation; failure of intervening (industrial) union to file a
petition in accordance with the rules and regulations does not prevent certifi-
cation of such union as representative of a unit not described in the petition
,filed, where intervenor endeavored to comply with rules and was placed in
position of a petitioner by Trial Examiner.
Mr. W. J. Perricelli, for the Board.
Peck, ,Shaffer ci Williams, by Mr. Andrew J. Conroy, Jr., of Cin-
cinnati, 0., for the Company.
Mr. Ray Kelsay, of Cincinnati, 0., for the Polishers.
Barbour cfi Bassman, by Mr. Fred B. Bassman, of Newport, Ky.,
for the Alliance.
Mr. A. Bruce Hunt, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 26, 1937, Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers
International Union, herein called the Polishers, filed with the Re-
gional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Wadsworth Watch Case Com-
pany, Dayton, Kentucky, herein callecl the Company, and requesting
an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Sec-
tion 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. On August 26, 1937, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
67573-38-vol . iv-32 '487
488 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an
investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and
to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On August 31, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing to be held at Covington, Kentucky, on September 7, 1937, copies
of which were duly served upon the Company, the Polishers, and
The Wadsworth Watch Case Workers Alliance, herein called the
Alliance, a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the
Company. Pursuant to said notice a hearing was held in Covington,
Kentucky, on September 7 and 8, 1937, before Charles B. Bayly, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
Company, and the Alliance were represented by counsel and the
Polishers by their agent, and all participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Kentucky corporation, has its office and principal
place of business in Dayton, Kentucky. It manufactures principally
watch cases, such products constituting approximately 90 per cent of
its production. Compacts, belt buckles, cigarette cases, tie clasps
and collar pins are also manufactured.
A stipulation,) entered into by all the parties to the proceeding,
states that the Company has sales offices in New York City, Chicago,
Illinois, and San Francisco, California, with sales personnel at each
of these offices; that it maintains a selling corporation, known as
Henriett, Inc., chartered under the laws of Kentucky, and operating
throughout the United States for the purpose of distributing com-
pacts manufactured by the Company; that the Company employs six
commissioned salesmen throughout the United States; that' 95 per
cent of the Company's customers are located outside the State of
Kentucky and are wholesalers of the Company's products; that for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 1936, the total volume of the
Company's business was done outside the State of Kentucky ; that the
raw materials purchased by the Company for use in its business are,
= Board's Exhibit 10A to C, inclusive
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 489
principally, gold, brass, nickel, and silver which are purchased out-
side the State of Kentucky, f. o. b. point of shipment. The stipula-
tion indicates the Company employs approximately 464 production
and 43 clerical and supervisory employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor. Local No. 68 of the Polishers was organized in June 1937
and admits to membership the following types of employees con-
nected with the polishing process in the Company's plant : Polishers,
buffers, platers, holdermen, cleaners, inspectors, and their helpers.
The Wadsworth Watch Case Workers Alliance is a labor organi-
zation without affiliation. Its membership is composed exclusively
of Company employees and it numbers among its members em-
ployees within every production department of the Company's plant.
The Alliance admits to membership all employees of the Company
except the following: "(1) An officer of the Company; (2) any per-
son having the right to employ or discharge employees; (3) those
holding purely supervisory positions; (4) those engaged in the Time
Study Department; (5) those engaged in the Cost Department; (6)
those engaged in clerical work in the general offices of the Company.
This does not exclude those engaged in clerical work in production
department of the Company." 2
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The petition under which this proceeding arose alleges that the
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining is "metal
polishing, buffing, plating, and processors thereto."
During June, July, and August 1937, the Polishers obtained 61
members in the plant out of 71 employees engaged in the polishing
process and eligible to membership. During July, Ray Kelsay, the
Polishers' representative called upon Frank B. Stegeman, vice-presi-
dent and general manager of the Company to negotiate a contract
with the Polishers as the exclusive representative of the employees
eligible to membership therein. Stegeman refused to enter into any
agreement with the Polishers and stated that the Company would
not negotiate a contract or bargain with the Polishers or any other
labor organization until the proper bargaining agency or agencies
had been determined and certified by the Board. This position of
the Company was reiterated at the hearing by Stegeman.
These proceedings were instituted by Kelsay on behalf of the
Polishers after the refusal of the Company to bargain.
2 Quoted from Article I , "Articles of Incorporation of The Wadsworth Watch Case
Workers Alliance." Alliance Exhibit No. 2A.
490 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meanwhile, certain employees undertook the organization of the
Alliance. Activity in behalf of the Alliance commenced in June 1937.
On July 30, 1937, officers were elected and a bylaw committee selected.
This committee recommended that an attorney be employed by the
Alliance, and thereafter its formation took place with legal advice
and guidance. Membership application cards were printed and cir-
culated outside the plant among employees eligible for membership.
Each card designates the Alliance as the signer's bargaining agent
with the Company "in respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment and other conditions of employment." Three hundred and
eighteen employees signed the cards.
Pursuant to the bylaws a bargaining committee, known as "Em-
ployees Representation Committee", was elected. This was composed
of 23 individuals, one from each of 23 theoretical divisions of the
plant. On August 28, 1937, the bargaining committee and the presi-
dent of the Alliance met with Stegeman in an effort to gain recogni-
tion of the Alliance as the exclusive bargaining representative for the
entire plant, aside from those persons ineligible to its membership.
No demands, other than that the Company accord the Alliance such
recognition, were made upon Stegeman. Recognition by the Com-
pany was denied for the same reason as that given in denying recog-
nition to the Polishers.
On September 1, 1937, the officers of the Alliance, acting pursuant
to a resolution of its members, directed a letter enclosing a copy of
the resolution to the Regional Office for the Ninth Region requesting,
in substance, that a proceeding in accordance with Section 9 (c) of
the Act be instituted and requesting an election to determine the
bargaining agency "for and on behalf of the employees of said Wads-
worth Watch Case Company." 3 Neither the letter nor the resolution
was in conformity with Article III, Section 2, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, and
the request was not acceded to. The hearing in the instant case was
held on September 7 and 8, 1937, and the motion of the Alliance to
intervene was granted. For reasons stated hereafter the Alliance is
herein treated' as having filed a petition in conformity with said Rules
and Regulations.
We find that a question concerning the representation of employees
of the Company has arisen.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
set forth in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
8 Alliance Exhibit No. 3A to C, inclusive
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 491
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Board's Exhibit No. 3, an analysis prepared by the Company of
its pay roll for the week ending July 20, 1937, shows the number
of persons employed within each department of the plant during
an "average" week. On the basis of this analysis the various de-
partments and the number of employees in each may be listed as
follows :
Number of
Department employees
Crown ( compacts ) --------------------------------------------- 4
Crown ( watch cases) ------------------------------------------- 20
Milling ( watch cases ) ------------------------------------------ 36
Buckle and Band---------------------------------------------- 6
Engraving ----------------------------------------------------- 3
Compact (decometal ) ------------------------------------------- 21
Jobbing-------------------------------------------------------- 9
Turning ----------- 16
Glass---------------------------------------------------------- 6
Inspecting ----------------------------------------------------- 11
Jointing ------------------------------------------------------ 27
Finishing ------------------------------------------------------ 12
Polishing ( compacts ) ------------------------------------------- 12
Polishing ( nickel cases ) ---------------------------------------- 11
Polishing ( filled & gold watch cases ) ---------------------------- 30
Plating (compacts ) --------------------------------------------- 2
Plating ( filled & gold watch cases ) ------------------------------ 7
Press---------------------------------------------------------- 24
Spinning------------------------------------------------------- 4
Etching-------------------------------------------------------- 5
Die------------------------------------------------------------ 66
Millwright----------------------------------------------------- 13
Porters -------------------------------------------------------- 10
Stock room---------------------------------------------------- 2
Gold cage------------------------------------------------------ 3
Factory Office-------------------------------------------------- 4
Inspecting #2-------------------------------------------------- 3
Engineering---------------------------------------------------- 4
Melting (rolling)----------------------------------------------- 10
Melting ( anneal & scratch brush ) ------------------------------ 12
Errand boys , telephone operator , laundry employees, watchmen
and janitresses----------------------------------------------- 21
Total---------------------------------------------------- 414
Few employees of the Company are unskilled. The types and de-
grees of skill required vary from department to department; but,
particularly in those departments dealing with precious metals, the
work is highly specialized and a high degree of skill is required. In
492 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this type of work a slight want of care may result in great loss. It is
in this classification of work that employees in the unit alleged to
be appropriate by the Polishers are engaged.
As stated previously,, the Polishers claim jurisdiction over certain
types of employees whose work is related to the polishing process.
There are within the die department certain polishers who are prop-
erly termed "die makers". Also there are holdermen and inspectors
who are not connected with the polishing process and , accordingly,
are not eligible for membership in the Polishers and do not come
within the unit alleged by it to be appropriate. The following em-
ployees come within the unit alleged by the Polishers to be appro-
priate: (a) buffers and polishers: in the polishing department, 34; in
the belt buckle department , 3; in the crown and pendant department,
1; in the jobbing department, 1; (b) cleaners: in the polishing depart-
ment, 5; in the plating department, 1; in the jobbing department, 1;
(c) holdermen: in the polishing department, 2; (d) inspectors: in the
polishing department , 9; in the plating department, 1; in the belt
buckle department, 1; in the jobbing department, 1; and (e) platers:
in the plating department, 7; in the engineering department, 4; total,
71. Of this total five employees are members of the Alliance. Only
one employee is a member of both the Polishers and the Alliance.
The Polishers contends that the types of employment within the
plant are so varied and highly specialized that the plant unit is not
the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The
Alliance contends that the plant unit is the appropriate bargaining
unit. It cannot be overlooked that a large majority of the employees
eligible for membership in the Polishers have expressed their prefer-
ence for a craft unit , rather than an industrial unit, and have en-
deavored to obtain recognition by the Company as such. Few
employees therein prefer the industrial unit.
We find that the employees engaged in metal polishing, buffing,
plating and the processes related thereto, as enumerated above, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
herein called the first unit , and we find, further , that all the employees
of the Company, exclusive of officers of the Company, persons having
the right to employ or discharge employees, those holding purely
supervisory positions , those engaged in the Time Study Department,
those engaged in the Cost Department, those engaged in clerical work
in the general offices of the Company (except those engaged in clerical
work in production departments of the Company ), and those included
in the first unit, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining , herein called the second unit, and that said units
will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their
right to self -organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
493
There are 71 employees in the first unit. The Polishers introduced
in evidence the membership cards of 61 persons, each of whom was
identified by its financial secretary-treasurer as a member of the
Polishers and by Stegeman as an employee of the Company. Thirty-
nine of the signatures were verified by various persons who witnessed
the signing of these particular cards, and the remainder, 22, were
verified by the above named officer of the Polishers. These cards were
available for inspection and objections by the parties to this
proceeding; but no objections were made.
Since the record does not disclose the names of the various em-
ployees in each department there is no direct evidence that these
members of the Polishers are employed in the first unit. However,
the analysis of the departments in the plant, heretofore described 4
gives the number of employees in those departments as 414. The
Alliance has a total of 318 members, and, accordingly, there are 96
employees in said departments who are not members of the Alliance.
In view of the fact that the Alliance has not more than five members
who are in the first unit and, further, that only one member of the
Polishers is also a member of the Alliance, it is manifest that the
great majority of, if not all, members of the polishers must inevitably
be in the first unit.
In this unit, as has been stated, there are no more than 71 em-
ployees. Thus the overwhelming majority of the employees in the
first unit have designated the Polishers as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
The Alliance, at the time of the hearing, had 311 members and
seven applicants for membership. Each member and applicant
signed the type of card which has already been described, thereby
designating the Alliance as their representative for collective bar-
gaining. The secretary of the Alliance identified these persons as
members of the Alliance and as employees of the Company. An em-
ployee of the Company, whose position is that of cost accountant,
testified that he had compared the signatures on the cards with the
signatures of employees in the Company compensation book, and on
the basis of such comparison found all members of the Alliance to be
employees of the Company.
There are 343 employees in the second unit. Of this total at least
313 5 are members of or applicants for membership in the Alliance.
This number constitutes a majority of all the employees of the Com-
pany in the second unit.
Some effort was made during the course of the hearing to cast a
doubt upon the free and independent status of the Alliance. Such
Board's Exhibit No. 3.
From the total of 318 members and applicants, five have been deducted as being in
the first unit.
494 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effort has a bearing on the issues in this proceeding only for the pur-
pose of proving that the Alliance may not have been the real and
unhindered preference of its members. It is sufficient at the present
time to state that the evidence in the record does not establish that
the members of the Alliance joined it through interference, coercion
or restraint on the part of the employer.
In rendering our decision to certify the Alliance as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the second unit, we are not un-
mindful that a petition in accordance with Article III, Sections 1 and
2, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended, was not executed and filed by the Alliance. However,
in view of the fact that the Alliance was informed at the hearing by
the Trial Examiner that its intervention placed it in the same posi-
tion as if it had filed a petition for certification of representatives, we
shall treat the case on the latter basis.
We find that the Polishers has been designated and selected by
a majority of the employees in the first unit as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Polishers is, there-
fore, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and we will so certify.
We find that the Alliance has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees in the second unit as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Alliance is, there-
fore, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and we will so certify.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Wadsworth Watch Case Company, Day-
ton, Kentucky, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The metal polishers, buffers, platers and the employees engaged
in processes related thereto, employed by Wadsworth Watch Case
Company, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
3. All of the employees of Wadsworth Watch Case Company, ex-
clusive of officers of the Company, persons having the right to
employ or discharge employees, those holding purely supervisory
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 495
positions, those engaged in the Time Study Department, those en-
gaged in the Cost Department, those engaged in clerical work in the
general offices of the Company (except those engaged in clerical work
in production departments of the Company), and all employees en-
gaged in metal polishing, buffing, plating and the processes related
thereto, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Local No. 68 of Metal Polishers, Buf-
fers, Platers and Helpers International Union has been designated
and selected by a majority of all the metal polishers, buffers, platers,
and the employees engaged in processes related thereto, employed by
Wadsworth Watch Case Company, Dayton, Kentucky, as their rep-
resentative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pur-
suant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, Local No. 68 of Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union is the exclusive
representative of all such employees for the purposes, of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that The Wadsworth Watch Case Workers
Alliance has been designated and selected by a majority of all the
employees of Wadsworth Watch Case Company, Dayton, Kentucky,
exclusive of an officer of the Company, any person having the right
to employ or discharge employees, those holding purely supervisory
positions, those engaged in the Time Study Department, those en-
gaged in the Cost Department, those engaged in clerical work in the
general offices of the Company (except those engaged in clerical
work in production departments of the Company), and all em-
ployees engaged in metal polishing, buffing, plating and the proc-
esses related thereto, as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
The Wadsworth Watch Case Workers Alliance is the exclusive rep-
resentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
Mr. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Certification of Representatives.