Alco-Gravure, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1980

249 N.L.R.B. 1019 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

ALCO-GRAVURE, INC. 1019
Alco-Gravure, Inc. and Baltimore Newspaper Graph-
ic Communications Union No. 31, Subsidiary to
International Printing and Graphic Communica-
tions Union, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-10858
June 3, 1980
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On August 9, 1979, the Regional Director for
Region 5 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in which he found, inter alia, that the process
control supervisor and the quality control monitors
and the job operators employed by the Employer
were neither supervisory nor managerial employ-
ees, and were included in the appropriate unit of
office and plant clerical employees for purposes of
an election. Thereafter, the Board, by telegraphic
order dated September 12, 1979, denied the Em-
ployer's timely filed request for review of the Re-
gional Director's Decision but amended the Deci-
sion to permit the employees in the above catego-
ries to vote under challenge. Following the elec-
tion held on September 13, 1979, the tally of ballots
showed that 7 ballots were cast for, and 8 against,
the Petitioner, with 8 challenged ballots, a number
sufficient to affect the results of the election. On
September 25, 1979, the Regional Director issued
his Supplemental Decision in which he reaffirmed
his original Decision on the eligibility of the con-
tested employees, overruled all the challenges, and
directed that the ballots be opened and counted,
and a revised tally of ballots issue. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a request for review of the Region-
al Director's Supplemental Decision and the Board,
by telegraphic order dated November 21, 1979,
granted review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review,
and it hereby affirms the Regional Director's Sup-
plemental Decision.
The Employer is a New York corporation en-
gaged in the rotogravure printing of newspaper
supplements, direct mail supplements, and advertis-
ing materials at its plant located at Glen Burnie,
Maryland.
The parties agreed that a unit of office and plant
clerical employees is appropriate for collective bar-
'The eight challenged ballot, inolved employees in the three calego-
ries which the oard had ordered should ote sublect to challenge
249 NLRB No. 137
gaining. We granted review of the Regional Direc-
tor's determinations with regard to the managerial
or supervisory status of the following categories of
employees:
The Process Control Supervisor
Robert Schwartz is the process control supervi-
sor and, in this capacity, is supervised by the man-
ager of technical services (a vacant position at the
time of the hearing in this proceeding), or directly
by the plant manager. His duties include ensuring
that standard operating procedures are followed in
technical areas; monitoring the quality of new ma-
terials including films, inks, and processing chemi-
cals; and resolving problems with materials and
processes as they affect manufacturing operations.
He is also responsible for the industrial waste man-
agement system including testing and taking meas-
ures necessary to conform to Government regula-
tions. Schwartz initially decides what tests are
needed and when they will be performed and has
the authority to halt production while tests are per-
formed. The decisions he makes in this area require
independent judgment and discretion, and the su-
perintendents and foremen are to honor his re-
quests and then themselves assign the work to par-
ticular employees. Schwartz evaluates test results
and makes determinations as to any corrective
action that he deems necessary. Schwartz has au-
thority to authorize bill payment by the Employer
of approximately $1,600 per month; he orders some
supplies on his own, has successfully recommended
capital expenditures by the Employer, and can rec-
ommend overtime for testing.
He is paid a salary comparable to the quality
control monitors and the job.operators and earns
considerably more than the hourly paid employees
in the unit, is not paid overtime, and does not
punch a timeclock. He enjoys comparable benefits
with supervisors, and attends weekly staff meet-
ings.
Although it appears that Schwartz can at times
recommend overtime, and the Employer claims he
has recommended that employees be disciplined,
the record is clear that he has no employees work-
ing under his supervision. He has no authority to
hire, fire, lay off, transfer, suspend, promote or
demote, or discipline employees. Any direction he
gives to supervisors or employees appears to be of
a technical nature, relating to quality control rather
than supervisory. We therefore find that Schwartz
is not a supervisor.
Although Schwartz' job duties require the use of
independent judgment and discretion, the record
does not show that such discretion is independent
of the Employer's established policies, or that he
ALCO-GRAVURE, INC. 9
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
makes any managerial decisions as to the levels of
manpower required for projects. We therefore find
that his position is not managerial and shall over-
rule the challenge to his ballot.
The Quality Control Monitors and the Job
Operators
The job operators and the quality control moni-
tors perform functions in ensuring the quality of
the publications printed by the Employer, and both
categories are under the direct supervision of the
manager of job operators. The record also shows
that employees in either of these categories may
act in either capacity and that shift superintendents
may also serve in either of these capacities ensuring
quality control.
There are three quality control monitors and one
trainee. Their function is to ensure the quality of
the publication of the New York Times Magazine.
and they work closely with in-house representa-
tives of the New York Times. They are required to
be present at all times that magazine is being print-
ed, and they constantly check on the product as it
comes off the presses. If magazines are showing de-
fects, the monitors have the authority to stop the
presses and have corrections made and new maga-
zines printed. Their actions may require production
to be idle while corrections are made, and may re-
quire the necessity for overtime because of printing
schedules and deadlines. The monitor must use in-
dependent judgment in his work, and his expertise
is based mainly on experience.
The two job operators and one trainee perform
much the same functions as the quality control
monitors while ensuring the quality of other com-
mercial printing performed by the Employer. They
also have the authority to have the presses stopped
for the correction of defects in printing and to
order reprints. In addition, they are responsible for
the preparation of factory orders detailing the spe-
cifics of each printing job; keeping records evaluat-
ing the quality of the printing; and preparing in-
voices and billing forms to be used by the account-
ing department in billing the customers. The job
operators also may have considerable contact with
the customers and have authority to negotiate
changes in a printing contract, which may affect
the Employer's cost factor. Although the Employ-
er contends that the operators can make financial
commitments on behalf of the Employer, the
record is unclear as to the necessity for approval
from management in these matters.
The quality control monitors and the job opera-
tors are salaried (except for trainee Leitner), and
receive no overtime. Their compensation is greater
than the other employees in the unit except for the
process control supervisor, and they do not punch
a timeclock.
In contending that these groups of employees are
supervisors, the Employer relies on their authority
to halt production and order corrections made. In
addition, it states that these employees can evaluate
other employees and recommend promotions. Fur-
ther, the Employer presented evidence that these
employees often substitute on weekends, for shift
superintendents, who are admitted supervisors, and
have all the authority of superintendents at that
time.
Although there is evidence that a couple of these
employees have been asked to do evaluations of
other employees in the past, the evidence is scant
concerning the weight given these evaluations in-
dependent of other evaluations on the same sub-
jects. Further, these appear to be isolated occur-
rences and not a matter of policy.
As in the case of Schwartz, any directions given
by these employees concerning the halting of pro-
duction in connection with quality control is of a
technical rather than a supervisory nature, and is
channeled through superintendents and foremen to
employees. The record also shows that they do not
attend management or supervisory meetings and
that they are not authorized to hire, fire, lay off,
suspend, promote or demote, or effectively recom-
mend any of these. Regarding their substituting for
shift supervisors on weekends, the evidence does
not show that they have real supervisory authority.
Rather, it appears that they are performing in their
normal capacity during these periods, although
they may be the highest ranking employee at the
plant at the time, and thus responsible for seeing
that things run smoothly. The only evidence of
their directing other employees is their occasional
direction to copy clerks to go to the airport to pick
up shipments. However, even as to this, it appears
that they are merely acting as conduits through
whom are channeled the directions left by the man-
ager of job operators, Greis. As the record shows
that the quality control monitors and the job opera-
tors exercise no real supervisory authority over
other employees, and they do not possess any of
the usual indicia of supervisory authority, we find
that they are not supervisors.
Also, as the record does not show that in the
performance of their duties these employees exer-
cise judgment and discretion independent of their
employer's established policies, or that they are in-
volved in the formulation, determination, and effec-
tuation of management policies, we find that they
are not managerial employees. Accordingly, we
adopt the findings of the Regional Director and we
ALCO-GRAVURE, INC. 1021
overrule the challenges to the ballots cast by these
employees.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that, as part of the investi-
gation to ascertain a representative for the purpose
of collective bargaining with the Employer, the
Regional Director for Region 5 shall, pursuant to
the Rules and Regulations of the Board and within
10 days from the date of this Decision, open and
count the ballots of Theodore Stegmiller, Law-
rence Kelly, Edward Schmuff, Robert Reppel,
Robert Schwartz, Dean Reinmund, Lewis Pheabus,
and Patricia Leitner, and thereafter issue and serve
on the parties a revised tally of ballots.
IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that the above-entitled
matter be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional
Director for Region 5 for further proceedings pur-
suant hereto.