Interstate Granite Corp.

In the Matter Of INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION and GRANITE CUTTERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA , CHARLOTTE BRANCH Cases Nos. C-445 and R-589.-Decided March 9,1939 Granite Products Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coer- cion: charges of, dismissed-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, carbo sawyers, lathe oper- ators, sandblast operators, tool sharpeners, polishers, rotary and gang sawyers, setters, dressers, letterers, and individuals who prepare and place necessary composition, including foremen in categories ; interrelated duties ; no basis shown for unit of only white employees-Employee Status: lease of department and in- dividual employment "contracts" purporting to alter status for insurance pur- poses, not controlling under Act ; granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine oper- ators, and tool sharpeners in leased department not independent contractors but employees under Act-Collective Bargaining: charges of failure, dismissed, upon finding that union represented less than majority-Discrimination: charges of, dismissed-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representa- tion of employees: employer's refusal to grant recognition of union; strike- Election Ordered Mr. Reeves R. Hilton, for the Board. Mr. Frank K. Sims, Jr., and Mr. William Mason, of Charlotte, N. C., for the respondent. Miss Edna Loeb, of counsel to the Board. DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 24, 1937, Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte Branch, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) a pe- tition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concern- ing the representation of employees of Interstate Granite Corpora- tion, Charlotte, North Carolina, herein called the respondent, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursu- ant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 9, 1937, the Union filed with the Regional Director charges alleging that the respondent had engaged in 11 N. L. R. B., No. 89. 1046 INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. 1047 and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. On November 20, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the Re- gional Director to conduct an investigation and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of the Rules and Regulations, further ordered that the representation proceeding and the proceeding with respect to the alleged unfair labor practices be consolidated for purposes of hearing, and that one record of the hearing be made. On December 2, 1937, the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent discharged M. B. Shell on or about September 27, 1937, and thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his union activities; (2) that the respondent refused during the month of August 1937, and still refuses to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly authorized representative of the respondent's employees in the appropriate bargaining unit; and (3) that the re- spondent by such acts and by other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On December 10, 1937, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted the allegations of the complaint relating to the nature and scope of its business but argued that the Board had no jurisdiction over it or its employees engaged in the manufacture and preparation of its products for sale, and that the Act, if construed to give the Board jurisdiction over these operations of the respondent, was unconstitu- tional ; -alleged that since August 31, 1937, it had not engaged in the cutting of granite, and had not employed any granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, or tool sharpeners; and denied the other material allegations of the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Charlotte, North Caro- lina, on December 13, 14, and 15, 1937, before Lawrence J. Kosters, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent appeared by counsel, the Union by a representative, and all participated in the hearing. At the commencement of the 1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing, counsel for the respondent entered a special appearance for the purpose of moving to dismiss the complaint and the entire pro- ceeding on the ground that the Board did not have jurisdiction over the respondent, as set forth in its answer. The Trial Examiner re- served decision upon the motion. Following the introduction of a stipulation of facts concerning the respondent's business, the motion was denied by the Trial Examiner and the respondent entered a gen- eral appearance reserving its rights under the said special appearance. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing. upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent moved that the pleadings be amended to conform with the proof. The Trial Examiner granted these motions. At the conclusion of the Board's case and again at the end of the hearing counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the evidence adduced did not substantiate the alle- gations of the complaint, and also moved to dismiss the petition. The Trial Examiner denied these motions. On February 3, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and further found that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. The respondent thereafter filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to various rulings of the Trial Examiner, and also filed a brief. For reasons hereinafter discussed the Board hereby reverses the ruling of the Trial Examiner denying the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations therein. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has also considered the ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report. As indicated by our findings, conclusions of law, and order set forth below, we sustain the excep- tions to the findings of the Trial Examiner that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the consolidated cases, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Interstate Granite Corporation is a North Carolina corporation en- gaged in the manufacture and distribution of granite monuments on INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. 1049 a wholesale basis. It operates a plant in Charlotte, North Carolina, where it employs approximately 55 workers. The principal raw material used by the respondent is granite. Approximately 95 per cent of the granite and most of the equipment purchased by the re- spondent are shipped to its plant from points outside North Carolina. From January 1 to December 1, 1937, the total value of the respond- ent's products was $155,533.24. Approximately 75 per cent of the finished products are shipped to customers outside North Carolina. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte Branch, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor, admitting to its membership white employees of the respondent. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The background The Union first started an organizational campaign in Charlotte, North Carolina, in the spring of 1935 before the effective date of the Act. Officers were elected and two granite cutters in the respondent's employ became the Union's president and secretary. In March 1935 the respondent discharged the two employees expressly because of their union activities, and reinstated them on the condition that they withdraw from the Union. The discharges destroyed the Union's morale and put an end to its organizational activities for a period of 2 years. In August 1937 interest in the Union was revived and on August 19 the Union secured a branch charter. A new membership campaign was begun, and by August 31 a number of the respondent's employees had signed cards designating the Union as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining. B. The alleged refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that the granite cutters, carvers, surface- machine operators, carbo sawyers, lathe operators, sandblast oper- ators, tool sharpeners, polishers, and rotary and gang sawyers, em- ployed at the respondent's plant, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. These classes of employees are eligible to membership in the Union. In its answer the respondent, upon information and belief, admitted the propriety of the above unit. 1 George Wrenn and O. K. Helms. 1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Union contends that only the white employees in the cate- gories listed in the complaint constitute the appropriate bargaining unit. Although the Union does not admit negroes to membership, it has presented no argument that would support their exclusion from the appropriate unit. Furthermore, no evidence is found in the record of any differentiation in function which would constitute a basis for such exclusion. Accordingly, we find that no such limi- tation upon the unit would be justified.2 In the respondent's process of manufacture, rough stone blocks from the quarry are first taken to the sawing department where gang sawyers cut them into slabs representing the size of monuments to be manufactured. Some of the stone has to be polished and accordingly goes from the gang saws to the polishing department. The cutting-department workers then break the slabs into the neces- sary sizes and cut them in various designs. The partially completed monuments are next taken to the carving and lettering department where they are inscribed with the desired patterns and lettering by means of sandblasting. The last step in the process is the delivery of the monuments to the shipping department where they are dressed and finished, and then crated for shipment from the plant. It is apparent that the employees working upon the stone in the sawing, polishing, cutting, and carving and lettering departments and in the dressing and finishing section of the shipping department have interrelated duties upon which the finishing of the monuments depends. Some of these employees, however, namely, setters, dressers, and letterers, are not included within the unit which the complaint alleges to be appropriate. The function of setters or bed setters is to level slabs of stone, set them up securely, build plank beds around them, and then plaster them. The slabs are ruined if they are not exactly level when set. The bed setters also relieve the polishers and operate the polishing mills. Letterers spread liquid rubber on the stone and cut or lay out in the rubber the designs and lettering desired upon the finished monument. They then apply the sandblast machine to the stone where the rubber has been cut away and the specified de- signs are produced. A dresser receives the finished stone, washes it with acid, and "dresses" it with the sandblast machine. The record demonstrates that skill is required for each of the above operations. We find, moreover, that these workers fall within the Union's juris- 4 Matter of American Tobacco Company, Incorporated, Richmond Smoking Branch and Committee for Industrial Organization, Local No. 472, 9 N. L. R. B. 579; Matter of Floyd A. Fridell, individually and trading as Carolina Marble & Granite Works and Gran- ite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte Branch, 11 N. L R. B 249. INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. - 1051 diction, as defined in its international constitution,3 and are therefore eligible to its membership. According to the said constitution, the Union's jurisdiction also embraces the "work of prepaying and placing of composition necessary." We shall include in the unit setters, dressers, letterers, and employees who do the work of pre- paring and placing necessary composition. It appears, moreover, that the Union desires to represent, and that its membership is open to, such foremen as are properly classified, by reason of their work, in any of the above categories of eligible employees. The respondent does not request the exclusion of such foremen from the unit. There is, therefore, no reason why the desires of the labor organization should not be determinative, and we shall include such foremen in the bargaining unit. A question has arisen concerning the inclusion in the bargaining unit of H. J. von Harbin and W. (Will) S. Haines. Von Harbin is a versatile employee who is capable of doing and does varied work in several departments of the respondent's plant. He is employed primarily, however, as a general repairman or master mechanic, and spends from 50 to 75 per cent of his' time working in that capacity. He is not paid by the hour as are most of the respondent's em- ployees but earns a salary of $50 per week, the same salary earned by a departmental foreman, who is not, apparently, the kind of fore- man whom we have included in the unit. In view of the nature of his duties and his rate of pay, we find that von Harbin is not prop- erly classified in any of the categories of employees listed above. We shall exclude him from the bargaining unit. Haines is the respondent's only designer or draftsman and spends about half his time in the designing office making diagrams or blue- prints essential for the guidance of the cutters. He works during the remainder of the time in the sandblast department, laying out lettering in rubber in the manner described above. Since he devotes so much of his time to the latter work, we find that his interests are closely allied with those of the classes of employees named above, and that for the purposes of this proceeding he is a letterer. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit. There is one further question. Although the respondent in its answer admits the propriety of the alleged bargaining unit, it claims that since August 31, 1937, it has not operated its cutting department or employed any cutting-department workers, namely, granite cut- ters, carvers, surface-machine operators, or tool sharpeners. The 8 The Union "claims the right of jurisdiction over cutting , carving, dressing, lettering and all metal lettering, sandblasting, sawing and setting all granite ( natural and artificial) and hard stone on which granite cutters' tools are used. This includes . . . polishing or dressing . . 1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent introduced evidence that on the latter date the said work- ers were laid off and that for approximately 3 weeks the department was closed for repairs. During the shut-down the respondent exe- cuted in favor of S. T. Efird, cutting-department foreman, a written lease of its entire cutting and finishing department, including the use of all machinery, equipment, and tools, and agreed to furnish motive power for its operation. Under the lease Efird inaugurated a system of bids and individual contracts with the workers under his supervision. It is upon the basis of these changes that the respondent rests its contention that the cutting-department workers are no longer its employees, within the meaning of the Act, but are now independent contractors. The respondent and Efird claim that the entire arrangement was consummated for the purpose of avoiding payment of workmen's compensation premiums which were so substantial that they rendered unprofitable the operation of the cutting department. Without de- ciding whether or not the respondent and Efird have accomplished the alleged purpose by resorting to these devices, we are of the opin- ion that the lease and the course of practice thereunder have not altered the relationship existing between the respondent, Efird, and the workers in the cutting department, within the meaning of the Act.4 Efird is required to pay no rent for the use of the valuable property leased. The cutting and finishing work essential to the respondent's business is done in the leased department as before, but, by the terms of an agreement embodied in the lease, such work is now attended by a series of bookkeeping transactions. The respondent sells stone to Efird; the latter has it cut and finished according to the respondent's specifications; and the respondent then repurchases it for the same price, plus a stated 25 per cent of the ultimate sale price of the finished monument. No money passes upon the occasion of these alleged sales, and despite the provision for his compensation upon a percentage basis, Efird continues to receive only $50 per week, his salary as foreman. Furthermore, he continues to perform the func- tions of a foreman under virtually the same supervision and control of the respondent. The respondent has continued through Efird to direct personnel policy in the department. This is clearly shown by the fact that substantially the same crew has been retained at the respondent's express request. There is evidence, moreover, of an interchange of workers. At the respondent's direction, individuals admittedly employed by the respondent in other departments of the plant perform work in the leased department. The respondent also exercises supervision- over the quality of,work done in the department 4 Matter of Seattle Post-Intelhgencer Department of Hearst Publications, Inc and Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local No 82, 9 N. L. R B 1262. INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. 1053 and calls defects to Efird's attention. Furthermore, the respondent has continued to pay the wages of Efird's crew, directly during the first few weeks after the reopening, but now indirectly, charging such wages against Efird's alleged accumulated profits, which are recorded in a separate set of books which the respondent keeps for him. Before the shut-down of the cutting department the employees worked regularly at an hourly rate of pay. Since its reopening they are working under what appears to be a variation of the piece-work employment system. Each worker submits a bid to Efird stating the sum of money which he will accept for cutting or finishing an individual piece of stone. If Efird approves the bid, he and the worker enter into a "contract" for the performance of such work. This "contract" is not reduced to writing, but the agreed price is merely set down upon the card which is kept for each piece of stone. Despite the contention that by virtue of these individual contracts the workers are independent contractors and no longer employees, within the meaning of the Act, we are satisfied that the character of their work, the functional relationship thereof to the respondent's business, and the extent of the respondent's supervision and control over such workers are essentially the same as those which prevailed prior to August 31. Accordingly, we find that the said cutting and finishing department workers, listed in the respondent's answer as granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, and tool sharpeners, are employees of the respondent, within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act., We find that all the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine op- erators, carbo sawyers, lathe operators, sandblast operators, tool sharpeners, polishers, rotary and gang sawyers, setters, dressers, let- terers, and individuals who prepare and place necessary composition, employed by the respondent, including foremen who fall in the above categories, and including the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, and tool sharpeners who work in the cutting and finishing department, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining, and that said unit will insure to such employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bar- gaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. 2. Representation of the Union in the appropriate unit The respondent's pay roll for the week ending August 31, 1937, the date of the shut-down, contains the names of 58 employees. The record does not indicate the exact number of employees in the appro- 5 Matter of Seattle Post-Intelligencer Department of Hearst Publications , Inc. and Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local No. 82, 9 N L. R B. 1262 1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD priate unit, but it is clear that the said unit includes more than 30 individuals. Of the 16 membership cards of the Union which were introduced into evidence, only 14 correspond with the names upon the pay roll. We find that the evidence does not establish that the Union at any time represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. We shall, therefore, dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. C. The discharge of M. B. Shell M. B. Shell worked for the respondent for approximately 19 months as a granite cutter. He joined the Union in August 1937 and was a member of its bargaining committee which met with the respondent on August 31 and on several occasions thereafter in an attempt to bargain collectively in behalf of the employees. He was laid off by the respondent on August 31 when the cutting department was closed for repairs. On the day preceding the reopening of the department, Shell asked Efird for work and was told by the latter of the new system of employment. Although Shell was at first reluctant to work under such an arrangement, he accepted employment on September 23 and worked for 2 days upon a monument scheduled for rush ship- ment on Monday, September 27. Illness prevented him from report- ing to his job on the latter date, and it was therefore necessary for his work to be completed by another cutter. When Shell returned to the plant on September 28, Efird told him that because of a lack of stone broken up for cutting," there was no work immediately available to him. Shell testified that Efird promised to let him know when more work was available but failed to do so. According to Efird's testi- mony, however, Shell was told to return to work the following day but did not return. In view of all the evidence, we find Efird's testi- mony worthy of credence. On October 4 the bargaining committee of the Union visited R. E. Scoggins, president of the respondent, and requested Shell's rein- statement. Scoggins stated that he employed no cutters and referred the committee to Efird. On the same date the Union authorized a strike, primarily because of its fruitless efforts to bargain collectively with the respondent. As a result of the strike the plant was closed on October 5 and 6. On October 5 the union committee conferred with Efird and Sims, his attorney,' and asked that Shell be reinstated. Efird stated that Shell had not been discharged but only laid off, and Although Shell was the first worker to be laid off for such cause following the execu- tion of the lease, it appears that since that time from four to six individuals have suffered like lay-offs. ' Sims, as noted above, was also one of the respondent's attorneys at the hearing. INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. 1055 although he refused to reinstate Shell with back pay, as requested, Efird told the committee that he was willing to give Shell contract work on the following day. Shell did not take advantage of this offer, however, because of the strike which was then in progress. By October 7 or 8 the strike had been abandoned and with the exception of Shell and one other union member, all the employees had returned to their jobs. On the night of October 7 Efird by telephone asked Shell to report for work on October 8. According to Shell's testi- mony, he told Efird that he did not want any more contract work and further, that he had no desire to be a strikebreaker. Efird denied that Shell said anything regarding strikebreaking and testified that the latter agreed to accept his offer of a job. Regardless, however, of what was actually said, Shell did not return to work with his fellow employees on October 8 or at any time thereafter.8 On this record we find that Shell was not discharged or refused reinstatement by the respondent because of his membership in the Union and his activities in its behalf. We shall accordingly dis- miss the allegations of the complaint in so far as they relate to Shell.. IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On August 31, 1937, and on several occasions thereafter, the Union requested the respondent to bargain collectively with it, claiming to represent a majority of the respondent's employees. The re- spondent refused to bargain with the Union and raised questions regarding the appropriate unit in view of the lease and agreement, and also regarding the Union's representation of a majority of the employees in such unit. The Union and the respondent were unable to resolve these questions informally or to come to any agreement concerning them. The Union therefore authorized a strike on Oc- tober 4, 1937, as set out in Section III C above. We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of employees of the respondent. V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, 8 On November 9, 1937, Shell secured a permanent position with Southeast Granite Com- pany, Elberton , Georgia, at substantially higher wages than he had earned either before or after the execution of the lease. 1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and has led and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The question which has arisen concerning the representation of employees within the appropriate unit can best be resolved by the holding of an election by secret ballot: Because of the length of time which has elapsed between the hearing and this Direction of Election, we shall direct that the em- ployees eligible to vote shall be those employees within the appro- priate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately preceding the date of this Direction of Election. We do not intend thereby to exclude from voting persons who have been tem- porarily laid off between the time of the hearing and the time of the election, as distinguished from persons who have quit or been discharged without discrimination within the meaning of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations and business of the respondent constitute a con- tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Char- lotte Branch, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not refused to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of M. B. Shell, thereby discouraging member- ship in a labor organization and engaging in an unfair labor prac- tice, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 6. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Interstate Granite Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 7. All the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, carbo sawyers, lathe operators, sandblast operators, tool sharpeners, polish- INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL . 1057 ers, rotary and gang sawyers, setters, dressers, letterers, and individ- uals who prepare and place necessary composition, employed by the respondent, including foremen who fall in the above categories, and including the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, and tool sharpeners who work in the cutting and finishing department, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against Interstate Granite Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 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 Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 1, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Interstate Granite Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, carbo sawyers, lathe operators, sandblast operators, tool sharpeners, polishers, rotary and gang sawyers, setters, dressers, letterers, and individuals who prepare and place necessary composition, employed by the respond- ent during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the issuance of this Direction, including foremen who fall in the above categories, and including the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, and tool sharpeners who work in the cutting and finishing department, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte Branch, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMiTir took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.