Wiley Mfg. Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of WILEY MFG. INC., EMPLOYER and LOCAL 154, UNITED
FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1674.Decided Noveniher 10, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Lepie, hearing of-
ficer. The hearing off'icer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire "record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The business of the Employer :
The Employer, a Massachusetts corporation, with a plant in Gard-
ner, Massachusetts, manufactures doll carriages and rocking horses.
During the year precedingthe date of the hearing, the Employer pur-
chased approximately $75,000 worth of raw materials, of which 50
percent was obtained from sources outside the State. During the same
period, the Employer sold all its finished products, which were valued
at approximately $300,000 to Thayer, Inc., a Massachusetts corpora-
tion doing business in Gardner, Massachusetts. Thayer, Inc., is en-
gaged in the purchase and sale of toys and various types of furniture.
During the year preceding the date of the hearing, Thayer, Inc., pur-
chased in excess 'of $4,000,000 worth of manufactured products, of
which it sold in excess of 50 percent to customers outside the State.
Upon the foregoing facts, we find, contrary to the Employer's con-
tention that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act. We further find, in view of the fact
that the Employer annually sells necessary goods valued in excess of
$50,000 to Thayer, Inc., which in turn annually ships outside the
State goods valued in excess of $25,000, that it will effectuate the
policies-of the-Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case?
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
1At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, the parent body of the Petitioner herein, had not
complied with Section 9 (h) of the Act . The hearing officer reserved ruling on the motion
for the Board. For reasons set forth in J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company. Inc.,
90 NLRB 130 , the motion to dismiss is hereby denied . It may be added that the Board's
records show that the CIO was in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act
at the time the petition herein was filed and is also currently in compliance.
2 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
92 NLRB No. S.
40
WILEY MFG. INC. 41
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The appropriate unit:
The parties are in agreement that all the Employer's production anti.
maintenance employees constitute an appropriate unit. There is dis-
agreement, however, as to the inclusion of the floorlady, the sweepers,
and the firemen-watchmen.
The floorlady: The Employer contends that the floorlady should
be included because she devotes all her time to production work. The
record, however, shows that the floorlady is the wife of the president of
the Employer. In view of this circumstance, we shall exclude the
floorlady.4
The sweepers: The Employer's two sweepers work at the plant on
Saturdays from 7 a. in. to 12 noon. It is their duty to clean and
sweep the plant. During the week, the sweepers attend school. As
they are regular part-time employees, performing maintenance work,
we shall include the sweepers.'
The firemen-wate/igne .: There are three firemen-watchmen in the
Employer's employ whose names are John Dupre, Theodore LeBlanc,
and John Jarmusik. The record shows that Dupre and LeBlanc de-
vote about 40 percent of their time to their duties as watchmen and
the balance of their time to their duties as firemen whereas Jarmusik
spends half his time as a fireman and the other half as a watchman.
As none of these three employees spend more than 50 percent of his
time as a guard, we shall include them.e
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Gardner, Massachusetts, plant, including sweepers, John
Dupre, Theodore LeBlanc, and John Jarmusik, but excluding floor-
lady Mary Wiley, clerical. employees, professional employees, and all
guards and supervisors as defined in the . Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
The Employer contends that no question concerning representation exists because the
Petitioner did not request recognition of the Employer bffore filing its petition with the
Board . For the reasons stated in Advance Pattern Company , 80 NLRB 29 , we find this
contention to be without merit.
4 Rosedale Passenger Lines, Inc.. 85 NLRB 527.
5 The P. B. Magrane Store, Inc., 84 NLRB 345: Morrison Milling Company, 83 NLRB 800.
G Wa.ldensian . Hosiery Mills, Inc., 83 NLRB 742 ; Steelweld Equipment Company, Inc.,
76 NLRB 831. The decisions in Texas Knitting Mills, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 106 , and Cornell-
Dubilier Electric Corp., 90 NLRB No. 67 , are hereby overruled insofar as they conflict
with the instant decision.