L. C. Phenix Company

In the Matter of LE Roy C . PHENIx, AN INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS AS L. C. PHENI% COMPANY and UNITED FURNITIIRE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LocAL 576, C. I. O. Case No. B-1192.-Decided May 15,1939 Furniture Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: con- troversy concerning representation of employees: rival unions; refusal of Com- pany to recognize either-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all em- ployees and supervisors not working at a trade; no controversy as to-Repre- sentatives: proof of choice: cards authorizing union as bargaining agency com- pared with pay roll-Certification of Representatives: upon proof of majority representation. Mr. Charles M. Brooks, for the Board. Mr. James S. Woollacott, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company. Mr. Ernest Marsh, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the United. Mr. Arthur Garrett, of Los Angeles, Calif., and Mr. Joseph A. Padway and Mr. H. Kaiser, of Washington, D. C., for the Furniture Workers. Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE On December 21, 1938, United Furniture Workers, Local 576, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the United, filed with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Le Roy C. Phenix, an individual, doing business as L. C. Phenix Company,' Los Angeles, California, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of rep- resentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On January 3, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of 'Incorrectly referred to in the pleadings as "L. C. Phenix Co." 12 N. L. R. B., No. 99. 993 994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On January 7, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear- ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the United, and Furniture Workers Union, Local 1561, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Furniture Workers, a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investigation.- Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, Cali- fornia, on January 16 and 17, 1939, before Albert L. Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the opening of the hearing the Furniture Workers filed a petition to intervene, which the Trial Examiner granted. The Board, the Company, the United, and the Furniture Workers were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the hearing on January 16, 1939, after the United had com- pleted its case, the Trial Examiner granted an adjournment until the following morning upon the request of counsel for the Furniture Workers who stated that John Murray, international representative of the Furniture Workers, was absent from Los Angeles but would be present at the hearing on January 17. At the opening of the hearing on January 17, counsel renewed his request for an adjournment, stating that Murray had not returned to the city and that he had been unable to communicate directly with him. Counsel being un- able to indicate the nature of the evidence, if any, that Murray would introduce, the Trial Examiner denied the request. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the request of the Furniture Workers, and pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on February 23, 1939. The Furniture Workers appeared by counsel and requested that the hearing be indefinitely postponed.2 The Board granted the request. The Fur- 2 Counsel for the Furniture Workers made no reference to the evidence, if any, which would have been offered had Murray been present at the hearing before the Trial Examiner. He based his request for postponement upon the fact that charges of unfair labor practices on the Company 's part had been filed by the Furniture Workers. Such charges had been filed but were thereafter withdrawn. LE ROY C. PHENIX 995 niture Workers thereafter withdrew its request for oral argument. On April 20, 1939, the Board, pursuant to notice to all the parties, ordered that the hearing for the purpose of oral argument be canceled. - Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Le Roy C. Phenix, an individual, doing business as L. C. Phenix Company, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of furniture at a plant in Los Angeles, California. During 1938, the Company purchased raw materials, consisting principally of lumber, textiles, springs, paint, and filling materials, valued at approximately $84,000, of which approximately 20 per cent originated outside the State of California. During the same period the Company sold finished products valued at approximately $250,000, of which approximately 16 per cent were shipped to desti- nations outside the State of California; approximately 10 per cent directly by the Company, and approximately 6 per cent by customers of the Company. The Company stipulated that it is engaged in interstate commerce. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, is a labor or- ganization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership all employees of the respondent, excluding clerical and supervisory employees. Furniture Workers Union, Local 1561, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It did not adduce any evidence relative to its requirements for membership. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On or about December 21, 1938, the United, claiming that it rep- resented a majority of the Company's employees, requested the Com- pany to recognize it as the representative of the Company's employees for collective bargaining. The Company refused this request but agreed to recognize the labor organization that would prove its majority by a pay-roll cross-check. Thereafter, at a meeting in the office of the Regional Director between the Company, the United, and the Furniture Workers, the latter refused to agree to a consent election or a pay-roll cross-check. Under these conditions the Com- 169134-39-vol. 12-64 996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pany has refused to negotiate with either labor organization until the Board certifies the one representing the majority. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. 1V. 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 Company described in Section I above, has a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE 'UNIT The petition filed by the United alleges that all production em- ployees of the Company, excluding office help and supervisors, con- stitute an appropriate bargaining unit. At the hearing, the United contended that it was an industrial union admitting to membership all employees of the Company except clerical employees and super- visors not working at a trade, and that it desired to include shipping- department employees and the janitor with the production employees in the unit. The Company did not object to the proposed unit and the Furniture Workers made no contention and offered no evidence concerning it. We see no reason for deviating from the unit claimed by the United. We find that all the employees of the Company, excluding clerical employees and supervisors not working at a trade, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Company and the United stipulated at the hearing that the pay roll of December 24, 1938, was the last normal pay roll preceding the hearing. On that date there were 47 employees within the unit found appropriate. The United introduced into evidence 40 duly authenticated authorization cards, of which 38 were signed by em- ployees of the Company within the appropriate unit. It is clear, therefore, that a majority of the employees of the Company within the appropriate unit desire the United to represent them as their bargaining agent. No evidence was introduced as to representation by the Furniture Workers of employees within the appropriate unit. LE ROY C. PHENIX 997 We find that the United has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit as their representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify. 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. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Le Roy C. Phenix, an individual, doing business as L. C. Phenix Company, Los Angeles, California, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All employees of the Company, excluding clerical employees and supervisors not working at a trade, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is the exclusive representa- tive of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of Le Roy C. Phenix, an individual, doing business as L. C. Phenix Com- pany, Los Angeles, California, excluding clerical employees and supervisors not working at a trade, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provi- sions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or- ganizations, is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.