Conmar Products Corp.

In the Matter of CONMAR PRODUCTS CORPORATION and CHAPTER 262, FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Case No. 2-R-5956.Decided April 30,1946 Mr. Herman Mayer, by Mr. Irwin Panken, of New York City; and Messrs. Henry H. Eskay and Herman Blume, both of Newark, N. J.,, for the Company. Mr. Herman B. Sekutzer, of New York City; Mr. William Vallanwe, of Detroit, Mich., and Mr. Irving Tannenbaum, of Newark, N. J., for the Union. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Chapter 262, Foreman's Association of America, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Conmar Products Corporation, Newark, New Jersey, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Jack Davis, Trial Ex- aminer. The hearing was held at New York City on various dates between January 8 and 18, 1946. The Company and the Union ap- peared and participated. All parties 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 Conmar Products Corporation, a New Jersey corporation with it plant located at Newark, New Jersey, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of zippers. The principal raw materials used 67 N. L. R. B., No. 126. 1021 1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by the Company in the manufacture of its product are tape, wire, thread, and cord. During the past year, the Company purchased raw materials for use at its Newark, New Jersey, plant, valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 75 percent was obtained from sources outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period, the Company manufactured, sold, and distributed finished products valued at more than $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was shipped from its Newark, New Jersey, plant 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. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Chapter 262, Foreman's Association of America, is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership supervisory employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its supervisory em- ployees until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appro- priate unit. A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit alleged by it to be appropriate 7 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. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union seeks a unit of supervisory employees comprised of all foremen, group leaders, and trainers employed in those departments of the Company's manufacturing division who are engaged in per- forming production, inspection, and training work, excluding the foreman of the training department, and J. Adams, a foreman in the scoop and coining department.2 The Company maintains that this unit is inappropriate in that it fails to include the foremen engaged in all departments of its manufacturing division. Thus, in addition to the foremen sought by the Union, the Company would include Adams, the foreman of the training department, and seven foremen 1 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 20 designation cards , all dated September 1945. Be further reported that there are approximately 22 employees in the unit alleged by the Union to be appropriate. 2 This department is engaged in production work. CONMAR PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1023 engaged in the following departments : toolroom, plant maintenance, machine maintenance, spare parts stores, raw material and component parts stores and receiving, and finished fastener stock and shipping. Moreover, the Company contends that group leaders and trainers are non-supervisory personnel who should not be included within the unit. The Company has had no prior history of collective bargaining with reference to its supervisory employees.' However, its rank and file production and inspection employees are currently represented by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local #424, CIO, herein called the U. E., and its maintenance employees are pres- ently represented by International Association of Machinists, Dis- trict #47, herein called the I. A. M.4 Contracts between the Company and these two labor organizations indicate that the U. E. represents, in addition to the non-supervisory subordinates of the employees sought by the Union herein, the rank and file workers in the finished fastener stock and shipping department, and the raw material and component parts stores and receiving department, and that the I. A. M. represents the non-supervisory employees in the plant maintenance, toolroom, and machine maintenance departments. Inasmuch as it appears that the Union seeks, generally, to represent supervisory personnel of the grade of foremen or below who supervise the rank and file employees currently represented by the U. E., we shall, in accordance with our decision in the Westinghouse case,' include within the unit hereinafter found appropriate such employees in the finished fastener stock and shipping department, and the raw material and component parts stores and receiving department,6 but shall exclude all employees in the plant maintenance, toolroom, ma- chine maintenance, and spare parts stores departments.' Group Leaders. These employees work under conditions of em- ployment, some of which are applicable to foremen and others to non- supervisory personnel. They are hourly paid workers in charge of groups of employees within a department. As in the case of foremen. the group leaders in the departments included within the unit perform little or no manual labor, and are concerned with the production ,:iid efficiency of their particular groups. The Company asserts that these employees are not supervisory personnel, but are part of the unit of rank and file workers currently represented by the U. E. The record contains no documentary evidence indicating that they are part of 3In 1942, the Company and United Office & Professional Workers of America, Local #7, C. I O , executed a consent election agreement providing for an election among the Company's foremen in the various production departments , the receiving department, the stock and shipping department , end the inspection department ( Case No 2-R-2956) However, no bargaining representative was chosen by the employees at this time 4 Trainers are specifically excluded from the unit represented by these two organizations. 566N L R B,1297 According to the record each of these departments has a single foreman. 7 It does not appear that the non-supervisory employees in the spare parts stores depart- ments are represented in the U. E 's production and inspection unit. 1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this unit or that the U. E . has bargained collectively on their behalf. On the contrary, the U. E. makes no claim to represent these employees, and the record indicates that they have authority to censure their subordinates and to recommend effectively their discharge to the fore- men. Under these circumstances , we are of the opinion that the group leaders engaged in the departments included within the unit possess supervisory authority within the meaning of our customary definition , and we shall include them. The training department . This department consists of a foreman and approximately four trainers . The foreman enjoys a salary, bene- fits, privileges, and authority over the trainers commensurate with those of the foremen of other departments of the Company. The Union maintains, however, that this employee is on a higher super- visory level than the foremen whom they seek to represent. The record discloses that the foreman of the training department reports directly to the assistant factory manager , and that, as part of her duties, tours the entire factory area for the purposes of informing higher management of any existing irregularities . The record does not indicate, however, that this employee possesses any supervisory authority over other foremen. Under these circumstances , we are of the opinion that her additional duties do not warrant a finding that she is on a higher supervisory level than other foremen sought by the Union. We shall include the foreman of the training department. The trainers are responsible for instructing new employees during their probationary period with respect to their duties and the Com- pany's routine, system, and procedures ; for retraining operators trans- ferred from one operation to another ; and for making and keeping records on employees whom they instruct. During the probationary period of trainees the trainers may effectively recommend their re- tention or dismissal to the foreman of the department in which they are engaged. In addition , there is some evidence that they may effectively recommend the disciplining of both new and old employees. We note, further , that trainers are specifically excluded from the rank and file units represented by • the U. E. and the I. A. M., and the record indicates that they enjoy many of the working privileges possessed by admittedly supervisory personnel . Under these cir- cumstances , we find, contrary to the Company' s assertion , that trainers are supervisory employees within the meaning of our usual definition and we shall include them. J. Adams. The Union and the Company agree that Adams is now a foreman in the scoop and coin department . The Union , however, contends that Adams is on a higher supervisory level than the foremen whom it seeks to represent . The record does not contain any evidence CONMAR PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1025 indicating that Adams possesses any more authority than other fore- men sought herein by the Union. Accordingly, we shall include him. We find that all foremen, group leaders, and trainers employed in the departments of the Company's manufacturing division performing production, inspection and training work, including such employees engaged in the finished fastener stock and shipping department, raw material and component parts stores and receiving department, and training department, but excluding all employees in the plant main- tenance, toolroom, machine maintenance, and spare parts stores de- partments, and all other employees of the Company, constitute a unit appropriate 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 shall be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The Com- pany and the Union agree that September 28, 1945, shall be the date determining eligibility to participate in the election. However, neither party advanced sufficient reason which, in our opinion, war- rants any departure from our customary practice. We shall, there- fore, direct that the employees eligible to participate in the election shall be those in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediatly preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.8 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 Rela- tions 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 representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Conmar Products Corporation, Newark, 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 Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among em- 8 Upon the assumption that the Board would adopt the September 28, 1945, eligibility date, some question arose at the hearing concerning the voting eligibility of J. Adams and J. Tupay. In view of the fact that we are adhering to our customary eligibility policy, no problem exists with respect to these employees , and it is clear that they are eligible to participate in the election. 692148-46-vol 67-66 1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees 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 Qr on vacation or 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 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 deter- mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Chapter 262, Foreman's Association of America , for the purposes of collective bargaining. M.R. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, I am constrained to dissent from the majority opinion in this case.