Zanesville Stoneware Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 20, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 1408 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of ZANESVILLE STONEWARE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS #567 (AFL)
Case No. 8-R-1284-.-Decided December 20,1943
Messrs. C. J. Crossland and M . H. Linn, of Zanesville , Ohio, for the
Company.
Mr. John Possehl, of Akron, Ohio, and Mr. Waldo E. Johnston, of
Zanesville, Ohio, for the Union.
Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board. '
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT of THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Union of Operating En-
gineers #567 (AFL), herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Zanesville StonewaAe Company, Zanesville, Ohio, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William O. Mur-
dock, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Zanesville, Ohio, on
October 27, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared, partici-
pated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine 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
Zanesville Stoneware Company is an Ohio corporation, having its
principal place of business located in Zanesville, Ohio, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of a clay product known as stoneware.
The clay and other raw materials, such as glaze, coal, etc., exceed an
annual value of $10,000, practically all of which materials come from
within the State of Ohio. The Company manufactures finished prod-
53 N. L. R. B., No. 257.
1408
ZANESVILLE STONEWARE COMPANY 1409
ucts valued in excess of $50,000 annually, of which over 50 percent is
shipped by the Company to points outside the State of Ohio.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers #567 is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING
REPRESENTATION
The Union contends that the power plant employees constitute an
appropriate unit, and that there are two employees, Robert E. Bailey
and Francis S. Archer, who comprise such unit. The Company con-
tends that although Bailey is designated as an operating engineer,
and might properly fall within the category of a power plant em-
ployee, Archer is a kiln burner and does not properly comprise part
of the alleged unit. It further maintains that since the proposed unit
would consist of only one eligible employee, it is not appropriate.
The record discloses that Archer is carried on the Company's kiln
burner department pay roll and is classified as a "kiln burner." He
receives the same rate of pay as do the three other kiln burners and
works 7 days a week, whereas Bailey and the production employees
work only 6 days a week. He engages in kiln burning work and plant
watching and, although he is a licensed engineer, the only engineering
duty he has is to make a fire in the furnace regularly every morning
except Sunday, and on Sunday also when the weather is extremely
cold. In the performance of such duty, he fills the stoker with coal,
turns on the boiler pumps, and then returns to his kiln burning
duties. The work performed by Bailey, the full-time engineer, amply
takes care of all other necessary power' operations; he starts the engine,
keeps the stoker running, keeps the hopper full of coal, and lubricates
the engine. Since it appears- that Archer's principal duties are kiln
burning and plant watching and that his engineering duties are merely
incidental, we conclude that Archer does not properly comprise part
of the alleged unit.
The Board has frequently held that the principle of collective
bargaining presupposes that there is more than one' eligible person
who desires to bargain, and that the National Labor Relations Act
therefore does not empower the Board to certify where only one
employee is involved.' Bailey, therefore, cannot be considered as
'See Matter of The Central Foundry Company, 20 N. L. R. B. 131, and cases cited
therein.
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constituting an appropriate bargaining unit. Since the bargaining
unit sought to be established by the petition is inappropriate, we find
that no question has arisen concerning the representation of employees
of the Company.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investi-
gation and certification of representatives of employees of Zanes-
ville Stoneware Company, Zanesville, Ohio, filed by International
Union of Operating Engineers #567 (AFL), be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
11