Air Filter Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 782 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Air Filter Corporation and District 10, International
Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 30-RC-2980
August 30, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
WALTHER
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered the challenge to the
ballot of Elmer E. Manske in an election held on
December 24, 1976,1 and the Hearing Officer's report
recommending disposition of same.2 The Board has
reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's
findings and recommendations.
The Employer is engaged in the fabrication of air
filters and employs approximately 26 to 29 employ-
ees. The job tasks utilized in the operations are both
routine and repetitious, requiring only approximately
15 minutes of training and very minimal supervision
thereafter.
Elmer Manske has worked for the Employer for 23
years, serving during the past 4 or 5 years as a
leadman in the assembly department which has eight
other employees. Manske and the five leadmen in the
various other departments are under the direct
supervision of Gary Peterson, the Employer's vice
president and general manager. Each of the other
leadmen either voted without challenge or had
challenges to their ballots withdrawn at the hearing
below.
On a typical day, upon reporting to work Manske
copies pertinent data from a stack of assembly orders
supplied by the front office and then parcels out the
orders to the other assembly department employees.
These assembly orders are initially prepared under
the direction and supervision of Peterson who
maintains a production schedule for the various
orders. Manske also checks timecards, noting wheth-
er employees forgot to punch in or out and correcting
errors. He shifts employees to different functions as
dictated by production schedules and as requested
by other leadmen. Manske, likewise, receives addi-
tional workers when the requirements of his depart-
ment so dictate and other leadmen can spare the
employees. The record indicates that Manske spends
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 13 for, and 10 against, the Petitioner;
there were 3 challenged ballots, a number sufficient to affect the results.
2During the hearing conducted on February 10, 1977, Petitioner
withdrew its challenges to the ballots of employees Mark Eckert and
231 NLRB No. 120
approximately 10 percent of his time performing the
above duties and the other 90 percent of his time is
spent performing rank-and-file work of spot welding,
stamping names on filters, and assembling filters
alongside the other employees.
Manske does not have the authority to hire, fire,
lay off, or suspend employees, settle grievances, or
effectively recommend such actions. While he may
advise his superiors with respect to the necessity of
overtime in order to timely complete an order, he is
not vested with the authority to grant overtime. In
the past Manske served as a conduit between
management and the employees and, as such, upon
Peterson's request he notified two employees of their
discharge for bad attendance, but did not make the
termination decision; he has also relayed employee
requests for a pay raise but, upon management's
denial of those requests, did not intercede on the
employee's behalf. While Manske is one of four
leadmen who have keys to open the plant in the
morning, he does not wear a uniform distinguishing
him from the other employees, nor does he attend
supervisory meetings. Finally, Manske receives the
same fringe benefits as the other nonsupervisory
employees.
On the basis of the foregoing we find that Manske
is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. In
so concluding, we note the absence of authority to
affect the employment status of the other employees
and the fact that he spends the substantial portion of
his workday performing rank-and-file work alongside
the other assembly department employees. With
respect to the transferring of workers between the
various departments, the record evidence fails, in our
view, to demonstrate that Manske and the other
leadmen exercise a degree of independent judgment
in this regard which is sufficient to establish that they
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We
are particularly persuaded by the fact that Manske
does not appear to possess any more authority than
the other leadmen who were either permitted to cast
unchallenged ballots or had such challenges with-
drawn. In view of the repetitious and routine nature
of the work involved, we conclude that leadman
Manske is not required to exercise independent
judgment to such an extent sufficient to deem him a
supervisor. Accordingly, we find that he is not a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act, and shall direct that his ballot be opened and
counted.
Lawrence Larscheidt. Thereafter, on the same day, the Regional Director
for Region 30 served a revised tally of ballots on all parties to the
proceeding. The revised tally was 13 for, and 12 against, the Petitioner; there
remained I challenged ballot, sufficient to affect the results.
782
AIR FILTER CORP.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for
Region 30 shall, pursuant to the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days of
the date of this Decision and Direction, open and
count the ballot of Elmer E. Manske, prepare and
cause to be served on the parties a revised tally of
ballots, and thereafter issue the appropriate certifica-
tion.
MEMBER MURPHY, dissenting:
Unlike my colleagues, I would find that leadman
Elmer E. Manske is a statutory supervisor and that
the challenge to his ballot, therefore, must be
sustained.
Manske has worked for the Employer for approxi-
mately 23 years, including the last 4 or 5 as a
leadman in the assembly department. He is thus one
of the Employer's most senior and experienced
employees. Although the work orders for the assem-
bly department are prepared in the front office,
Manske parcels out the assembly orders among the
eight employees in that department. Manske also
checks the timecards of the assembly employees and
corrects any errors before transmitting them to the
front office. Manske shares a desk with another
leadman in the assembly area. Although Manske has
no specific authority to hire or fire employees or to
grant pay increases, the record shows that, at the
direction of Vice President Peterson, he has notified
two employees that they were discharged for poor
attendance. He has also transmitted requests for pay
increases to Peterson. Periodically other leadmen will
go to Manske if they need additional workers and
Manske will transfer such workers from the assembly
department if he can spare them. Similarly, Manske
polls other leadmen as to whether they can spare
certain employees when he needs additional help. In
so doing, Manske clearly exercises independent
judgment and discretion. The fact that Manske is not
the highest paid employee in the assembly depart-
ment is irrelevant. Nor is it significant in the
circumstances here that Manske spends the majority
of his working time performing rank-and-file work
and supervises only part of the time.
Contrary to my colleagues, I also find irrelevant
the fact that four other leadmen were either permit-
ted to vote without challenge or had the challenges to
their ballots withdrawn at the hearing. Their supervi-
sory status is not in issue here, and the parties'
apparent agreement that the other leadmen are not
supervisors surely can have no bearing on the
question which is before the Board; namely, whether
leadman Manske is a supervisor.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record
herein, I would find that Manske exercises sufficient
independent judgment to render him a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Accordingly, I would also sustain the challenge to his
ballot.
783