Wilbur B. Driver Co.

In the Matter of WILBUR B. DRIVER COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. R-5540.-Decided July 9, 19443 Bailey c Schenck, by Mr. George B. Bailey, of Newark, N. J., for the Company. Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard and Mr. Leonard H. Goldsmith, of Newark, N. J., for the Union. Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Wilbur B. Driver Company, Newark, New Jersey, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before James C. Paradise, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Newark, New Jersey, on June 15, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the bargaining unit sought by the Union is inappro- priate. For reasons stated in Section III, infra, the motion is hereby granted. 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Wilbur B. Driver Company, is a New Jersey corporation engaged at three plants located in Newark, New Jersey, in the manufacture of special alloy wire and strip. During the year 1942, the Company used raw materials, consisting of steel, nickel, chromium, iron, man- 51 N. L R. B., No 39. 171 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ganese, silica, beryllium and copper, valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was transported to the Company from points outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period, the Company manufactured finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was sold and shipped to purchasers outside the State of New Jersey. The Company does not deny that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization ad- mitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT The sole issue in the instant case involves the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, sought in the Union's petition, limited to the production and maintenance employees at the Company's plant known as plant #3. The Company's manufacturing operations are housed in three buildings designated as plants nos. 1, 2, and 3. Originally the only plant of the Company was the main plant or plant #1. How- ever, in October 1942, because of the requirements of war production, it became necessary for the Company to enlarge its plant. The Com- pany attempted to construct an additional building on adjoining prop- erty but could not do so because of restrictions on building materials. It therefore acquired the nearest available building, which is now known as plant #3. The distance between the main plant and plant #3 is between ?^3 and 1/4 mile. The record indicates that there is a close functional relationship between the main plant and plant #3. All materials are received at plant #1, where a central supply and stockroom is maintained. In the manufacture of wire, which is the principal product of the Company, the raw materials, after having been received at the main plant, are there combined and reduced to the form of ingots. These ingots are then put through various processes which produce wires or rods of various sizes. Having reached this step the wires or rods are then moved to plant #3, where they are put through additional wire draw- ing processes for the purpose of reducing them to the necessary de- gree of fineness. The wire is then returned to the main plant for further drawing, if necessary, and for testing, spooling, and shipping. At plant #2, which is located about 11/2 miles from the main plant, enameling and other finishing operations are performed on the wire. There is no wire manufacturing process which is performed only at plant #3. On the contrary, the main plant and plant #3 comprise a single integrated operation for the manufacture of wire; and various processes performed at plant #3 are duplicated in the main plant. WILBUR B. DRIVER - COMPANY 173 All maintenance employees of the Company report to and work out of the main plant except a single maintenance employee who is sta- tioned at plant #2. The maintenance employees are temporarily as- signed to plants 2 and 3 from time to time. All hiring of new employ- ees is done at a central employment office which is located between the main plant and plant #3. The pay rolls for all plants are prepared at the main plant. The Company maintains uniform employment policies applicable to all its employees. There is one superintendent who is in charge of all production operations of the Company. There is also a superintendent under him who is in charge of plant #3, but the latter's jurisdiction also covers certain departments in the mails plant which are similar in function to certain production departments in plant #3. It appears that there is as yet no interchange of pro- duction workers between plant #3 and the other plants. However, an executive of the Company testified that there may be some inter- change in the future. The Union argues that since it has organized only those employees in the Company's plant #3 and since this plant is physically separated from the other two plants of the Company, such employees may be appropriately grouped in a separate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.' We find this contention to be without merit.2 Since it is apparent that the employees in the Company's plant #3 constitute an integral and indistinguishable part of the entire New Jersey operation of the Company, we are of the opinion, and find that the unit sought to be established by the Union is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the Union is inappropriate as stated in Section III, above, we find that no question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company in an appropriate bargaining unit. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Wilbur B. Driver Company, Newark, New Jersey, filed by Congress of Industrial Organizations, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. I The record indicates that the Union was unsuccessful in an attempt to organize the employees at the main plant sometune before plant #3 began operation. The Union was also unsuccessful in a later attempt to organize the main plant and plant #2 2 See Matter of Oneida, Ltd., 49 N L. It B 1178