Imperial Brass Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of IMPERIAL BRASS MANUFAC7 QRING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and U. A. W., A. F. L., AMALGAMATED LOCAL No. 286, PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-4058.Decided February 11, 19117 Fyffe c6 Clark, by Mr. Albert J. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer. Messrs. Nick Nardi and Albert M. De Vito, of Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner. Mr. John J. Gallione, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chicago, Illinois, on December 16, 1946, before Robert T. Drake, 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 OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Imperial Brass Manufacturing Company is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of fuel and oil tube fittings and accessories at Chicago, Illinois. During the past year, it purchased raw materials in excess of $50,000, of which over 50 percent came from points out- side the State of Illinois. During the same period, it sold finished products at a value in excess of $100,000, of which over 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The Employer has 2 plants in Chicago. Its main plant, which employs 500 people, is located at 1200 West Harrison Street, Chicago; and its other plant, which employs approximately 125 people, is located at 2844-56 West Harrison Street, Chicago, Illinois. The em- ployees at the latter plant are the subject of this proceeding. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 72 N L R B, No 95 513 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em- ployer. III. TJ-IE 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 meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all production and maintenance employees in the Employer's plant located at 2844-56 West Harrison Street, Chicago, Illinois, including the head clerk of the stock room, but excluding tune clerks, typists, production schedule clerks, watchmen, laboratory technicians, fore- men, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, 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 The parties are in disagreement concerning eligibility of a school boy who is a part-time employee. The Employer has employed this school boy as a production worker for approximately 1 year. During the school year, he works approximately 15 to 20 hours per week. During school vacation, he works full time for half of his vacation, and half time for the other half of vacation. He receives the same rate of pay as other production workers. He is regularly and sub- stantially employed, and has a sufficient interest to entitle him to vote in the election.' Another employee, who is a production worker, has been granted a leave of absence to attend school for a few months. He is still car- ried on the Employer's pay roll. We agree with the parties that he 1 We find no merit in the Employer' s contention that the Board should not direct an election on the grounds that the record does not disclose that the Petitioner has a substan- tial interest among the employees involved Matter of 0 D Jennings,( Company, 6S N. L R B 516 ; Matter of Phelps-Dodge Refining Corporation, 69 N L R B 536 2Matter of Joseph T Ryerson d Son, Inc, 67 N L R B 88 , Matter of Hudson Dispatch, 58 N L R B 115 IMPERIAL BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 515 should be permitted to vote in the election. For the purposes of the election; he shall be deemed to be an employee "on vacation," within the terms of the Direction of Election. We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by all election by secret ballot subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Imperial Brass Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted 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 Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations-Series 4, among the employees 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 or 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 those 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 determine whether or not they desire to be represented by U. A. W., A. F. L. Amalgamated Local No. 286, for the purposes of collective bargaining.