R. Appel, Inc.

R. APPEL, INC. 7 4. In substantial accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that all employees employed in the Employer's Honolulu, Hawaii, hotel and apartment properties, including kitchen, main- tenance, and housekeeping employees, bellboys, bus boys, waiters and waitresses, and desk clerk-switchboard operators,? but excluding office and clerical employees, guards and/or watchmen, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act 8 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 iii this volume.] MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Election. ' we shall include the desk clerk-switchboard operators in the unit as the record shows that they spend less than 50 percent of their time performing clerical duties. 'The head chef and the no. 1 maid are excluded as the record shows that these individuals possess supervisory authority within the meaning of the amended Act. R. APPEL, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-696. July 6; 1951 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 John C. Weld, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.. Pusuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce. within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production. and main- tenance employees excluding office clerical employees, professional :employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Em- 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 95 NLRB No. 2. 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer contends that seasonal employees should be excluded from the unit. The, Employer is engaged in the manufacture of handbags. During the greater part of the year it manufactures handbags from leather, but during the spring of each year there is a reduced market for leather handbags and the Employer engages in an intensive produc- tion of plastic handbags for summer use. The Employer maintains a year-around work force of approximately 90 employees. These em- ployees work on leather handbags during the major portion of the year, but'in the spring approximately 50 percent of these employees are assigned to the manufacture of plastic handbags. At the be- ginning of February of each year the Employer begins to hire 'seasonal employees to work on plastic handbags only. A peak level of such employment is reached and maintained during April and part of May when approximately 90 seasonal employees are employed. Layoffs among these employees commence during the latter part of May and all the seasonal employees are laid off, by mid-June or the first of July. The record discloses that, although the seasonal employees are less skilled and are paid at lower rates than the regular employees, they nonetheless work alongside and'among regular employees and per- form tasks similar to those performed by regular employees. We find, therefore, that all employees working at jobs, within the unit are included and entitled to representation therein, irrespective of the tenure of their employment? Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Ithaca, New York, plant, including sea- sonal employes, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5.'The Petitioner would include among those eligible to vote, and the -Employer would exclude, the seasonal employees employed to work on plastic handbags. Although the Employer gives reemploy- ment preference to applicants who have worked in the plant during prior seasons, no effort is made by the Employer to recall such em- ployees and the record reveals that at the time of the hearing only 3 of the seasonal employees had been previously employed by the Employer. Moreover, it does not appear that these employees have a reasonable expectancy of becoming regular employees as each year only 1 or 2 seasonal employees are assigned to fill vacancies which occur among the regular employees. Further, the record shows that unusually high rates of turnover and absenteeism exist among the seasonal employees, which require the Employer to, carry from 25 to 30 additional employees on its payroll to maintain its required 2 Gerber Products Company, 93 NLRB 1668. DEENA ARTWARE, INCORPORATED 9 labor force. Although the seasonal employees work in close contact with the regular employees, we are of the opinion that their tenure of employment is not sufficiently regular or substantial to entitle them to participate in the election, and accordingly, we find that they are ineligible to vote .3 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 Gerber Products Company, supra ; The Heekin Can Company, 88 NLRB 726. DEENA ARTWARE , INCORPORATED and UNITED BRICK AND CLAY WORK- ERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR . Case No. 9-CA-44. July 6, 1951 Supplemental Decision On October 25, 1949, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued its Decision and Order in this case,1 in which it found that Deena Artware, Incorporated, herein called the Re- spondent, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, and ordered the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial action. The Board thereafter petitioned the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Sixth Circuit to enforce its Order against the Respond- ent. On October 12, 1950, the court granted a motion by the Re- spondent to remand the case to the Board for the purpose of receiving and considering additional evidence. The order of remand does not indicate that the court has as yet considered the merits of the Board's Decision and Order' Pursuant to the remand, a further hearing was held before Herman Marx, the Trial Examiner who presided at the original hearing. On February 9, 1951, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental In- terinediate Report, in which he found that the additional evidence received required no change in the Board's Decision and Order, and recommended that the Board reaffirm it without modification, as set forth in the copy of the Supplemental Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Supple- mental Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Supple- mental Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case (including the original record), and 1 86 NLRB 732. 95 NLRB No. 6.