George Rutledge Co.

In the Matter of GEORGE RUTLEDGE Co. and UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. 2-R-5483.-Decided June 1, 1945 Mr. Harry B. Epstein, of New York City;-for the Company. Mr. Thomas F. Wilson, of Newark, N. J., for the Union. Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by United Construction Workers, United Mine Workers of America, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of George Rutledge Co., Montclair, New Jersey, herein called the Com- pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before John J. Cuneo, Trial Examiner. Said hear- ing was held at Montclair, New Jersey, on May 14, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 TIIE COMPANY George Rutledge Co. is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the manu- facture of ammunition boxes at Montclair and Orange, New Jersey. During 1944 the Company purchased raw materials valued in excess of $250,000, about 90 percent of which was shipped to it from ponlts outside the State 62 N.1, R. 13, No. 3 9 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of New Jersey. During the same period the Company sold products valued in excess of $500,000, about 75 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of New Jersey. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Construction Workers, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On March 12, 1945, the Union requested the Company to recognize it as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the Company's employees. The Company refused this request until such time as the Union is certified by the Board. A statement of a Field Examiner of the Board, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.' 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. o IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT We find, in agreement with the parties, that all production and, maiirte- nance employees at the Montclair and Orange, New Jersey, plants of the Company, including watchmen, handlers, and trucking employees, but excluding office employees, inspectors, superintendents, foremen, assistant foremen, and any other supervisory employees with authority to-hire, pro- inote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot among the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. The Company employs five to seven part-time workers on its night shift who work 20 to 30 hours weekly. They receive substantially the same rate of pay as the regular employees performing similar work. The parties agree ' The Field Examiner reported that the Union presented 44 authorization cards . There are approximately 84 employees in the appropriate unit. GEORGE RUTLEDGE CO. 11 that they should be eligible to vote in the election. Inasmuch as the part-time employees work on a regular schedule and under conditions comparable to those of the regular employees, we conclude that they have a sufficient interest in the selection of a bargaining representative to entitle them to vote in the election. 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 Relations Board Rules and' Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with George Rutledge Co., Mont- clair, New Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direc- tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board,, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11 , of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately preceding the date of this Direction , including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation on 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 have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election , to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Construction Workers, United Mine Workers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining