Alexander Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1056 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
challenges to the ballots of Peter Palmieri and Jean Jaroszewski be
sustained, we shall adopt these recommendations.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty-
second Region shall with ten (10) days from the date of the Direction,
open and count the ballots of the employees whose names appear on
Appendix A attached hereto, and serve upon the parties a revised tally
of ballots. If the Petitioner receives a majority of the valid votes the
Regional Director shall issue a certification of representatives; if the
Union does not receive a majority of the valid votes, the Regional
Director shall issue a certification of results of election.]
[The Board ordered the above-entitled matter referred to the
Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region for disposition.]
APPENDIX A
C. Amato E. Hackel I. Prisco
Y. Angotti M. Harris L. Rosso
A. Asconi E. Hundley E. Sigro
D. Battaglino N. Iosca C. Ulrich
P. Bizelewicz T. Kennedy D. Corey
A. Buja E. Knecht V. Battaglino
L. DeAngelo E. Stecz M. Lusky
C. Danza D. Villagomez A. Magee
T. Darragh M. LaPorte M. Tosoloski
B. Doornbus E. Tercheck M. Van Blarcom
S. Skiados A. Laviola H. Wynne
L. Rivera G. Lucci D. Miller
E. Teitsma A. Lusky M. Gleason
P. Esposito J. Mascarin A. Merola
A. Fondacaro M. Misciagna J. Zeshonski
L. Greco
Alexander Manufacturing Company and Employees Committee of
Alexander Manufacturing Company, Petitioner . Case No.
15-RD-84. May 21, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Immel, Jr.,
hearing officer. At the hearing, the Union moved to dismiss the
petition on several grounds. For reasons stated infra, the motions
are hereby denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
120 NLRB No. 114.
ALEXANDER MANUFACTURING COMPANY - 1057
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of.
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner asserts that the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, is. no longer the
bargaining representative, as defined in Section-9 (a) of the Act, of
the employees designated in the petition.
3. At the hearing, the Union moved to dismiss the petition con-
tending that it could not be filed properly by an attorney. We find
no merit in this contention. Section 9 (c) (1) (A) of the amended
Act provides for the filing of decertification petitions by "an employee
or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting
in their behalf." 1 The hearing officer denied the Union's motion for
production of the evidence relied upon to determine the adequacy of
the Petitioner's showing of interest. In its brief, the Union contends
that its motion should be sustained by the Board inasmuch as the
evidence was sought for the purpose of ascertaining the eligibility
of those employees authorizing the petition. It is well established
by the Board that the Petitioner's showing of interest in decertifica-
tion as well as representative petitions, is an administrative deter-
mination not litigable by the parties.'
On December 14, 1954,3 the Board ordered the Employer to bargain
with the Union and found that the appropriate unit was all produc-
tion, and maintenance employees. Administratively, we have been
advised that 17 bargaining sessions were held between July 11 and
December 3, 1956, which resulted in no final agreement. The Union
filed a second 8 (a) (5) charge on October 10, 1956, which was dis-
missed by the Regional Director and whose determination was upheld
by the General Counsel on July 6, 1957. There is no evidence in the
record that an agreement has since been reached by the parties.
However, 'the Union contends that it is the majority representative
of the employees.
In view of the foregoing, we find that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) - (1) and Section
2 (6) -and (7) of the Act 4
4. The Employer is engaged in the 'f abricating of farm equipment
at its principal office and place of business at Picayune, Mississippi.
The Petitioner and the Employer agree that the production and
? The Hertner Electric company, 115 NLRB 820 ; Clackamas Logging Company, 113
NLRB 2291 +
11
1 . •
2 Le Roi Division, Westinghouse Asrbrake Co , 114 NLRB 893, 895; Burry Biscuit Cor-
porattion, 76 NLRB 640 ; Colonial Hardware Flooring Company, Inc., 76 NLRB 1039.
S 110 NLRB 1457, 1466.. _
Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc, 114 NLRB 1549.
483142-59-vol. 120-68
J058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintenance unit is appropriate. The Union took no position either
.at the hearing or in its brief.
The Employer's operations are confined to two adjacent buildings,
,one in which cutting, forming, and welding operations are performed,
;the other where assembling, painting; and shipping operations are
-performed. The Employer operates 1 shift of approximately 30
,employees. Responsible for the operations is the superintendent who
.directs the work in both buildings and is the only person with
:authority to hire and discharge or to grant time off to the employees.
Under him as foreman of approximately 20 employees who work in
-the building where the welding operation is performed, is a person
-who assists the superintendent, is authorized to move employees from
one occupation to another, tell them what to do, and "watch out for
the men," "help get things ready and show them what to cut out."
Both the superintendent and the foreman are salaried. We find that
-they responsibly direct the employees and are supervisors.
In the other building, there is a person whom the superintendent
tells what is to be done, and he assigns the work and sees that it is done
-properly. Unlike the foreman, he is hourly paid. Although both the
-Employer and the Petitioner agree that he is not a supervisor, we find
the record inadequate to make a determination. Therefore, we shall
-permit him to vote subject to challenge.
The Employer would include and the Petitioner exclude a shipping
.clerk who is salaried and works in a corner of the building where the
painting is done. At times he helps to load trucks. We find that he
is a plant clerical and properly belongs in the unit.
'The Employer takes no position on the eligibility of an engineer
whose office is in the rear of the welding building, but the Petitioner
.desires to exclude him from the unit. His work consists principally
not drafting blueprints. Usually, but not always, the part is built and
-then drawn by him. No evidence was submitted as to his educational
-background, but the superintendent stated that he used mathematical
calculations to figure stress of metals. He is hourly paid at approxi-
mately the same rate as the maintenance mechanic. The evidence is
-insufficient to determine that he is a professional employee; however,
-we find that he is a technical employee and exclude him from the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
employed at Picayune, Mississippi, constitute an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
a9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, excluding the office
,clerical employees, the engineer, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]