Paragon Rubber Corp.

In the Matter of PARAGON RUBBER CORPORATION, EbIPLOIER, and UNITED RUBBER , CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AiiER- ICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 1-R-3216.-Decided January 16, 1947 Mr.-Edward B. Cooley, of Springfield, Mass., and Mr. Edward G. Schaeffer, of Smith's Ferry, Holyoke, Mass., for the Employer. Mr. Pasquale J. Gallucci, of Naugatuck, Coml., for the Petitioner. Mr. Benj. E. Cook, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on August 16, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among the em- ployees in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally reveals that there were approximately 70 eligible voters and that 63 ballots were cast, of which 27 were for the Peti- tioner, 18 were against, and 18 were challenged. Thereafter, an appropriate hearing was held at Easthampton, Mas- sachusetts, on August 29, 1946, before Robert E. Greene, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS or FACT 1. TIIE BUSINESS OF TILE EMPLOYER Paragon Rubber Corporation, a New York corporation, maintains its general sales offices in New York City and its manufacturing plant at Easthampton, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in manufacturing rubber commodities. During the first 6 months of 1946, 95 percent of the raw materials used by the Employer was purchased outside the 72 N. L R B, No. 28. 170 PARAGON RUBBER CORPORATION 171 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During the same period, the Ei n- ployer sold finished products valued at more than $250,000, 95 percent of which was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor llelations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the inean- ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. TV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The election was held in a unit composed of all production and maintenance employees, excluding office, clerical, and supervisory employees. The parties agree generally that this unit is appropriate. They are in disagreement as to whether two employees, Paul Jackson and John Dunforcd, whose votes were challenged, should be included nn this unit. Paul Jackson is a highly skilled machinist engaged in the repair: of machinery. He is a salaried employee and on this account, the Petitioner challenged his vote. As a machinist, Jackson is definitely a production and maintenance employee. The fact that he is paid on a salary basis whereas other employees in the unit are hourly paid does not justify his exclusion.' We shall include him. The ballot of John Dunford was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that he is a supervisory employee. Dunford is a general utility man in the mill room. It does not appear that he has the authority of a supervisor within the Board's customary definition. Accordingly, we find that he is not a supervisor and we shall include him in the unit.2 We find that all production and maintenance employees 3 of the Employer at its Easthampton, Massachusetts, plant, excluding office ISee Matter of The Griseom-Russell Company. 70 N L R B 1299, platter of Id I du Pont de Nernonrs R Company, Inc, Rayon Division, 62 N L R B 146 2 Inasmuch as both Dunford and Jackson are included in the unit, we hereby overrule the challenges to their ballots 3 This includes Paul Jackson and John Dunford 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and clerical employees and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, _discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Employer challenged 15 voters on the ground that they were "probationary employees." The Employer considers newly hired em- ployees to be in a probationary status during the first 90 days of their employment. During this period, the probationary employees work the same hours, in the same surroundings and under substantially the same conditions as permanent employees. The principal distinguish- ing feature between probationary and non-probationary employees is that the former do not participate in a group insurance plan and are not entitled to paid vacations. On the other hand, seniority dates from the original hiring date and the probationary period is counted in determining vacation rights after the first year of employment- Probationary employees are hired with the expectation that they will -become permanent employees and the great majority do achieve per- manent status. In view of the foregoing, we believe that these pro- bationary employees have the same interest in the selection of a bar- gaining representative as regular employees and should be permitted to vote 4 Accordingly, we hereby overrule the challenges to the ballots, of these probationary employees. The ballot of James Vanasse was challenged by the Employer on the ground that he was discharged for cause about 2 weeks before the election. The Petitioner conceded at the hearing that Vanasse was ineligible to vote. We find that Vanasse was not an employee of the Employer on the day of the election-and therefore was ineligible to. vote. We hereby sustain the challenge to his ballot. Inasniuch.as the ballots of John Dunford, Paul Jackson, and the 15 probationary employees are sufficient in number to affect the outcome of the election, we shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted. DIRECTION IT Is HEREBY DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain, representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Paragon Rubber Corporation, Easthampton, Massachusetts, the Regional Di- rector for the first Region, shall, within ten (10) days from the date of ' See Matter of Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc, 65 N. L. R. B. 921, and cases cited therein PARAGON RUBBER CORPORATION 173 this Direction, open and count the challenged ballots of Dorcas Fortier, Josephine Church, Stanley Michalski, Jr., Viola Kosior, Ernest. Godaire, Edwin Pawlikowski, Richard W. Wagner, William J. Schae- fer, Frederick P. Lima, Majorie King, Henry T. Lukowski, Jean Swenning, Ritta Lepine, Mae Knox, Gerald Seery, John Dunford, and Paul Jackson, and thereafter prepare and serve upon the parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots, including therein the results of said challenged ballots.