American Finishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 6, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 412 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

Iii the Matter of AMERICAN FINISHING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
MACHINE PRINTERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
PETITIONER
Case No. 3d-RC-100.Decided October 6, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearings were held before Anthony J.
Sabella and Richard C. Keenan, hearing officers of the National Labor
Relations Board. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
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 is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer .2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .3
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all journeymen machine printers
and their apprentices in the printing department at the Employer's
Memphis, Tennessee, textile finishing plant. The Employer contends
I Rulings upon the admission into the record of certain proffered evidence were reserved
to the Board by the respective hearing officers. The proffered evidence, including the
exhibits , are herewith accepted and made a part of the record.
2 The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act. This contention is without merit. We have heretofore found that the
Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Matter of Rock Hill
Printing Company, 82 N. L. R. B. 932.
3 The Employer has a current contract with the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO,
covering its production and maintenance employees . This contract was executed on
November 16, 1948, for 1 year, effective November 21, 1948. The Employer contends, in
the alternative , that if the employees herein sought are not supervisors , then the contract
covers them and is, therefore , a bar to a present determination of representatives. We find
no merit in this contention . Neither party referred to these employees in their 1948 con-
tract negotiations. The contract, although setting up wage rates for the other employees
in the printing department , contained no reference to these employees . Further , the Textile
Workers, at the hearing , disavowed any interest in them. We find that the contract with
the Textile Workers does not cover the employees herein sought by the Petitioner and is
not, therefore, a bar to this proceeding.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 55.
412
AMERICAN FINISHING COMPANY 413
^(1) that each of the employees involved is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, and (2) that if they are .not supervisors they,
nevertheless, do not constitute a separate appropriate unit because they
are allegedly an integral part of its over-all production operations.
The Employer is engaged in bleaching, dyeing, finishing, printing,
sanforizing, coating, and performing other related processes upon
cotton textiles. Its plant operates three 8-hour shifts a day_ and
employs between 800 and 900 employees, of whom 700 are production
and maintenance employees, and approximately 100 are classified as
foremen and assistant foremen.
The printing department was placed in operation in January 1948.
It is under the supervision of the superintendent of printing, who in
turn is under the plant superintendent. The printing department
operates three 8-hour shifts, 5 days a week. Each shift is supervised
by a shift foreman. Under each shift foreman are approximately 14
-employees. They are an assistant foreman and 3 employees on each of
2 printing machines, as assistant foreman and 3 colorists in the color
:shop, an ager, and a utility man. Under the assistant foreman on each
of the 2 printing machines are the back tender, gray tender, and swing-
man (sometimes called an inspector).
The printing department prints colored designs upon cotton cloth.
This is accomplished by running the cloth through a printing machine.
This machine has several rollers, the number depending upon the num-
ber of colors in.the pattern. All designs in the pattern having the
same color are engraved on one roller. A different roller is required
for each color. Each roller rotates against a furrier which, in turn,
revolves through a tray of dye. As the cloth passes through the
machine the several rollers, geared and timed so that their particular
color designs will strike the cloth in proper sequence, produce the
desired pattern upon the cloth. The colors are mixed by the employees
in the color shop. The printing machines are operated by the assistant
foremen and the "backhelp"-i. e., the back tender, gray tender, and
swingman. After the cloth is printed, it is dried. The color is then
"aged" in the cloth by use of chemicals. This is done by the ager. The
cloth, thus treated, is then sent to some other department for further
processing. The utility man, as the title indicates, performs miscel-
laneous duties throughout the printing department. Approximately
35 to 40 percent of the goods processed by the Employer passes
through the printing department.
The superintendent of printing is present at the plant most of the
first shift and for about 3 hours of the second shift. However, he does
not spend all of his time in the printing department, nor is he expe-
rienced in the operation of the printing machines. Accordingly, the
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
responsibility for the proper operation of the department, especially
that of the actual printing processes, devolves upon the shift foremen.
In addition to supervising the operation of the printing process,
including coordinating the supplying of the dyes and the application
of the aging process, the shift foreman may give advice and assistance
to the assistant foreman, if needed, in the setting up and operation of
the machine. He may occasionally operate the machine for short
periods of time. The shift foremen are carried on the pay roll as
"foremen"; they work 1 to 2 hours a day longer than the production
employees; and they are paid a monthly salary.
As heretofore stated, the assistant foreman operates the printing
machine. He is in complete charge of the machine and the "backhelp."
Most of the manual work in setting up the machine is done by the
back tender, gray tender, and swingman, under the direction and guid-
ance of the assistant foreman. In operating the machine, the back
tender, the gray tender, and the swingman perform certain duties
in, the back of the machine, such as keeping the color pans filled, in-
suring that the cloth is fed into the machine properly, and providing
the assistant foreman with samples, sailed "patches," for inspection
purposes. The assistant foreman remains in front of the machine
to observe the run of the cloth. From time to time he orders the
"backhelp" to make certain adjustments. He also directs them in
their other duties. The assistant foremen are carried on the pay roll
as "assistant foremen." They are paid $1.55 to $1.65 per hour on an
8-hour a day basis. Although they work 1 to 2 hours a day longer
than production employees, they are paid for 8 hours only. The
"backhelp" normally remain assigned. to one machine and remain on
the same shift and under the same assistant foreman at all times. They
are paid an hourly wage-ranging from 96 cents to $1.08 per hour.
Of the employees in the printing department, the Petitioner seeks a
unit composed of the three shift foremen and the eight machine
printers classified as assistant foremen. The Petitioner contends that
two of the shift foremen are journeymen machine printers and that
the third shift foreman and the eight assistant foremen are apprentice
machine printers. As hereinabove noted, the Employer contends that
each of the employees sought by the Petitioner is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act.4
4 There are approximately 90 foremen and assistant foremen in the other departments
of the Employer 's plant who allegedly have the authority to hire, discharge , suspend, lay
off, reward , promote, discipline , and responsibly direct the employees under them , and they
are excluded from the current plant -wide bargaining unit as supervisors . The Employer
contends that the system employed in the other departments was adopted in the printing
department when it was established, and that each of the shift foremen and assistant
foremen sought by the Petitioner has the same authority.
AMERICAN FINISHING COMPANY 415
Shift foremen. The Employer has, on several occasions, told the
shift foremen that they are vested with supervisory authority." Al-
though admitting that they had been advised that they had this
authority, each of the employees involved testified that he did not be-
lieve, as a matter of fact, that he actually possessed such authority.
However, the record reveals that the foreman of the first shift hired
two employees, transferred men from one printing machine to another
on several occasions, recommended the promotion of an employee
to an assistant foreman (which was done), and has, according to his
testimony, on occasion "gotten on the printers pretty rough." Al-
though the foreman of the second shift has neither hired nor dis-
charged anyone, nor recommended such action, and has settled no
grievances, he is in charge of and responsible for the printing depart-
ment during his shift and takes care of everything that arises unless
it is a great emergency. The foreman of the third shift frequently
secures personnel from the second shift to remain over for his shift;
he recommended that one employee be discharged (which was done) ;
he has complete charge of the printing department during his shift;
and he considers that he has the right effectively to recommend the sus-
pension of anyone in his department.
The foreman of machine printers in the textile printing industry
normally lays out the work, discusses the pitching of the patterns
with the colorist, designates the particular machine upon which the
pattern will be run, assigns machine printers to printing machines,
passes upon questions respecting patterns and defective engraving,
and is in charge of the back tenders, gray tenders, and swingmen.
The foreman usually wears "street clothes," has an office, and does
not repair or operate the machines.
In the instant case each of the shift foremen testified that it was
the superintendent of printing who laid out the work, discussed the
pitching of the pattern with the colorist, designated the machine upon
which the pattern was to be run, assigned printers to machines, and
passed upon questions respecting pattern and defective engraving.
The shift foremen wear work clothes, do not have an office, and occa-
sionally, as heretofore indicated, assist in the repair and operation
of a machine.
S On November 29, 1948 , the Employer circulated to all shift foremen , including each of
the employees here involved, a memorandum stating that "the American Finishing Com-
pany organization provides for the right of all you foremen and assistant foremen to hire
and fire rank -and-file employees under you ." The memorandum also stated that the em-
ployees had always had this right in order to get the work done as promptly and as effi-
ciently as possible. On January 26, 1949, the plant superintendent talked with each of the
shift foremen and explained to them that they had full authority to hire, discharge , suspend,
etc., as above set forth , and asked them if they understood that they had this authority.
Each shift foreman replied in the affirmative and signed a written memorandum of the
conversation.
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the duties performed by the shift foremen in the Employ-
er's printing department do not conform fully with those performed
by foremen in the machine printing industry generally, it is clear that
the shift foremen responsibly direct the employees under them, and
that they also exercise the authority of a supervisor with regard to
hiring, discharging, reprimanding, disciplining, and promoting em-
ployees in the printing department. We therefore find that the shift
foremen are supervisors and we shall exclude them from the unit.
Assistant foreman. Machine printers in the textile printing indus-
try are not generally considered to be supervisors. The Employer
insists, however, that it does not follow the industry practice in this
respect, and that it has conferred upon each of the machine printers
all the powers of a supervisor as defined in the Act. It further con-
tends that the machine printers have exercised these supervisory
powers.'
In August 1948, the Employer advised each of the assistant fore-
men in the printing department that he had control over his machine
and the crew on the machine, with full authority to take any action
necessary to obtain the requisite quality and quantity of work. On
November 29, 1948 (the petition was filed on November 17), the
Employer circulated to all assistant foremen, including each of the
employees here involved, the memorandum stating that "The Ameri-
can Finishing Company organization provides for the right of all
you foremen and assistant foremen to hire and fire rank-and-file
employees under you." On. January 26, 1949 (the hearings were con-
ducted on January 21-22 and March 24-25), each of the assistant
foremen was called in separately and asked by the Employer if he
understood that he had full authority to hire, discharge, suspend,
promote, discipline, and responsibly direct the employees under them.
Each assistant foreman answered in the affirmative.
The alleged delegation of authority to the assistant foreman by the
Employer in August 1948, to take any action necessary to obtain the
required quality and quantity of work, did no more than to confer
upon the machine printers that authority generally possessed by a
skilled craftsman over his apprentices, helpers, machines, and tools.
We find that such an affirmation of an existing duty falls short of
conferring upon these employees the powers of a supervisor. The
memorandum of November 27, 1948, and the conferences of January
26, 1948, did, however, purport expressly to place the assistant fore-
men in the status of supervisors. However, we note that the memo-
randum of November 27 followed by 10 days the filing of the petition
9 We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the machine printers constitute an
integral part of the over-all plant operations and, therefore , should not be established in a
separate bargaining unit. See Matter of Proximity Manufacturing Company, 54 N. L. R. B.
1179 ; Matter of The Celanese Corporation of America, 72 N. L . R. B. 1194.
AMERICAN FINISHING COMPANY 417
in this case on November 17, 1948. And the conference on January
26, 1949, occurred 2 days after the hearing was commenced and prior
to its consummation on March 24, 1949. The timing of these alleged
affirmations of supervisory authority upon the employees herein
sought by the Petitioner compels us to scrutinize closely all of the
surrounding factors in determining whether such authority was, in
fact, granted to these employees.
Machine printers in the textile printing industry are not normally
vested with the powers of a supervisor. Obviously, as pointed out in
the dissent, the Employer is under no obligation to operate his busi-
ness in accordance with the prevailing industry practice. However,
it is pertinent to note that the machinery, the materials, and the
printing process are exactly the same as generally are employed in the
industry. Only in respect to supervision does the Employer allegedly
deviate from the industry practice.
The record further discloses that, if the machine printers are super-
visors, the ratio of supervisory to non supervisory employees in the
printing department is one to three, while the ratio of supervisory to
nonsupervisory employees in the other plant departments is one to
seven. Not only is the ratio in the printing department higher than
in the other plant departments, but is higher than that prevailing in
the textile printing industry. As we have previously stated, the
ratio of supervisory to nonsupervisory employees is a factor which,
although not determinative, must be considered.
Finally, we do not think that the assistant foremen have exercised
supervisory authority to the extent that they would have if they, in
fact, possessed such authority. It is true, as our dissenting colleague
points out, that if these employees are actually supervisors, the fact
that they have not exercised supervisory authority does not destroy
their supervisory status. However, we think that where an issue is
as close as it-is in this case, considerable weight must be given to the
extent to which the alleged powers have been used. Admittedly there
have been isolated instances in which some of these employees have
engaged in activity indicative of a supervisor. However, sporadic
and infrequent exercise of supervisory authority, as in the instant
case,' does not in itself confer supervisory status 8 We find that the
' The record reveals that one machine printer discharged an employee on his crew for
smoking in violation of the company rules ( although he later took the employee back) ;
another assistant foreman recommended that his brother-in-law be hired , which recom-
mendation was given effect ; some of the assistant foremen considered that they had the
authority to discharge members of their crews ; an employee was discharged by the super-
intendent of printing as a result of an assistant foreman ' s recitation of events to the
superintendent of printing ; and another employee was discharged when an assistant
foreman told the superintendent of printing that either the employee would "have to go"
or that he, the assistant foreman, would quit.
8 Matter of Todd Shipyards Corporation , 80 N. L . R. B. 382 ; Matter of U. S. Gypsum
Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 1059; Matter of General Motors Corporation, 78 N. L. R. B. 72.
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervision exercised by the assistant foremen over the "backhelp" is
that normally exercised by a skilled craftsman over his helper 9 and
not that of a supervisor over an employeel-'e We conclude, therefore,
that assistant foremen are employees within the meaning of the Act.
There are six regular and two spare machine printers, designated
by the Employer as "assistant foremen," in the Employer's printing
department. Their duties are described above. Insofar as the physi-
cal operation of the machine is concerned, these assistant foremen
perform the same processes that are customarily performed by jour-
neymen machine printers and their apprentices in the textile print-
ing industry. The Petitioner, which represents over 90 percent of
the textile machine printers in this country, requires an apprentice-
ship of 7 years before it will recognize a machine printer as a jour-
neyman. The apprenticeship must be served in assisting in the oper-
ation of a printing machine-the gray tender, the back tender, and the
swingman are not apprentices. We have heretofore found that ma-
chine printers and their apprentices constitute an identifiable, homo-
geneous, highly skilled craft."- Although the assistant foremen oper-
ating the printing machines for the Employer have not undergone
the apprenticeship required by the Petitioner'12 it is clear, neverthe-
less, that they perform the same type of work, in a varying degree,
that skilled machine printers or their apprentices perform. The
Employer admitted that considerable skill was required of the
assistant foremen in pitching patterns, setting up and adjusting the
printing machines, and in obtaining a proper run of the cloth. We
therefore find that the assistant foremen are skill craftsmen, or ap-
prentice craftsmen at the very least, capable of constituting a separate
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Accordingly, we find that the machine printers designated by the
Employer as assistant foremen are an identifiable, skilled, and homo-
geneous craft (or apprentice craft) group and constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
u The record discloses that the assistant foremen consider that they are in charge of the
machines and responsible for the men under them . They direct and instruct the machine
crew in their duties ; and the latter must take orders and instructions from them.
10 Matter of General Steel Tank Co., 81 N. L. R. B. 1345.
11 Matter of Proximity Manufacturing Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 1179; Matter of The
Celanese Corporation of America, 72 N. L. R. B. 1194; Matter of Rock Hill Printing Com-
pany, 82 N. L. R. B. 932.
12 Only two individuals in the printing department are recognized by the Petitioner as
journeymen printers. They are two shift foremen. The eight assistant foremen, who
serve as machine printers , were never connected with the textile industry until their em-
ployment with the Employer after January 1, 1948. They each served short periods of
time back of the machine and then moved to the front of the machine as assistant foremen
(machine printers ) after a few months. At the time of the hearing , each of the assistant
foremen possessed from 5 to 8 months' experience in the textile printing industry.
AMERICAN FINISHING COMPANY 419
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer , an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction , under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations , among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election , including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off , but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election , and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement , to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented , for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by Machine Printers Beneficial Association of the United States.
MEMBER GRAY , dissenting in part :
A majority of the Board Members have found that the eight ma-
chine operators , designated by the Employer as assistant foremen,'
are skilled craftsmen capable of constituting a separate unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining . They have also found
that these machine printers are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act . I am unable to agree with either of these findings.
The Petitioner , representing virtually all the textile printers that
are bargained for in this country, has established a prescribed course
of training for its members covering a minimum period of 7 years as
a condition to obtaining journeyman status. In the operation of multi-
colored printing machines , printing fine and costly cloths and neces-
sitating many delicate adjustments , a degree of skill approximating
that of a craft is required. If the machine printers involved herein
possessed the same degree of skill required of a journeyman machine
printer by the rest of the industry, and if the Employer's operations
required the use of comparable skill, I would agree with the majority's
conclusion upon this point.
However, neither of these factors is present in this case . None of
the eight employees involved had any prior experience in the textile
printing industry-nor even in the textile finishing industry-prior to
their present employment with the Employer. Nor do these individ-
uals possess prior experience in any way related to the printing indus-
try. Before their employment with the Employer , these men had
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been farmers, insurance agents, draftsmen, glass mechanics, sheet
metal workers, and railroad workers. Yet after 3 or 4 months as one of
the "backhelp," which the Petitioner does not recognize to be appren-
tice work, each of these men became a machine printer operating
the printing machine. I do not believe that an individual can become
a skilled craftsman after 3 or 4 months performing work that is not
even recognized as apprentice work.
It is significant that the Petitioner does not contend that these indi-
viduals are craftsmen, but asserts that they are apprentices. Further-
more, the printing done by the Employer does not require skilled
machine printers. The Employer finishes, for the most part, cotton
cloth to be ultimately used as bags and cheap cotton goods. The print-
ing of designs upon cloth of this type does not require the skill gener-
ally required of craftsmen machine printers in the printing industry.
Because the eight machine printers involved do not possess the skill
required to be craftsmen, and because the work that these men perform
does not involve the use of craft skill, I would dismiss the petition as
the unit which it seeks to establish does not constitute an "employer
unit, craft unit, plant unit, or sub-division thereof."
I find it even more difficult to accept the majority's conclusion that
the machine printers involved in this proceeding are not supervisors.
To me the evidence is very clear that the contrary is true.
Section 2 (11) of the amended Act provides :
The term "supervisor" means any Individual having authority,
in the interest of the Employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,
recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward or discipline other em-
ployees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their griev-
ances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection
with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely
routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent
judgment.
The Board has consistently held that an individual having the au
thority set forth in the above-quoted section of the Act is a supervisor
and must be excluded from any bargaining unit regardless of whether
he has exercised such supervisory authority.13 In this case, the Em-
ployer definitely and unqualifiedly told each of the machine printers
that he had full authority to do the acts which Section 2 (11) defines
as supervision. That they were so instructed by the Employer is
admitted by the assistant foremen.
13 flatter of Mine Safety Appliances Company, 85 N. L. It. B. 290 ; Matter of West
Coast Paperboard Mills, 76 N. L. R. B. 1236 ; Matter of WCAU Broadcasting Co., 72 N. L.
R. B. 537. See Matter of Continental Pipe Line Company, 78 N. L. It. B. 379.
AMERICAN FINISHING COMPANY 421,
The majority implies that the timing of the above confirmations
of supervisory authority casts suspicion upon the Employer's motive.
However, the issue is not the Employer's motive, but whether the
Employer did, in fact, delegate this authority to these individuals.
I will assume, arquendo, that the Employer's actions were motivated.
by a desire on its part to avoid any obligation it may have to bargain
with the Petitioner if these individuals were not supervisors. There
is nothing in the amended Act, and I am aware of no prior Board_
decisions, that prohibits an employer from doing just that.
The majority found that the Employer, while professing to confer
supervisory authority upon these employees, did not in fact do so.
They rely upon the following factors to support their conclusion that
the Employer did not. mean what it said: (1) A contrary practice
prevailing in the industry; (2) the high ratio of supervisory to non-
supervisory employees; (3) the infrequent exercise of supervisory
authority by these employees; and (4) the existence of the relation.
ship of a skilled craftsman to his helper.
It is true that machine printers in the balance of the industry are not
supervisors.''4 However, the record clearly shows that, administra-
tively, this Employer not only operates its printing department dif--
ferently from the industry practice, but operates its entire finishing-
plant differently. The Petitioner's representative, in comparing the
operation of the Employer's printing department with the industry
practice, stated, "no practice would apply to this shop as you operate
it." I do not believe that the majority intends to imply that the Em-
ployer must operate its business in accordance with the industry
practice.
I agree With the majority opinion that the ratio of one supervisory
to three nonsupervisory employees is high by comparison with the
industry practice. The Employer is not prohibited by law from es-
tablishing any ratio of supervisory to nonsupervisory employees that
it may elect. This Board may not impose its superior judgment upon
a business in such matters.
Further, I find that the ratio existing in the printing department.
is entirely consistent with the ratios existing in the other plant de-
14 However , in testifying as to the practice in the industry relative to machine printers,.
the Petitioner' s representative testified at the hearing that :
A printer on the machine tells the back tender what to do ; the journeyman on the
machine tells the gray tender what to do ; and the journeyman printer on the machine
tells the swingman what to do , or the inspector , as the case may be. He never asks
anybody. With any of these 3, if he would consult with them at all he orders them
to do these things as a natural thing and they, without question , look to the man who
is running the machine to be the one who tells them , and he says not to do that, and if
they do it he can fire them-not that he can fire them , but they are definitely assistants,
to him in every single operation on the printing machine.
867351-50-vol. 86-28
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
partments 15 Justification for the difference in the two ratios is found
in the fact that each printing machine costs over $35,000, and, as
conceded at the hearing, improper operation of these machines would
cause costly damage in a relatively short period of time. I find that
these factors amply justify, if any justification is necessary, the higher
ratio existing in the printing department.
Not only do I find, as above stated, that the Employer delegated
supervisory authority to the machine printers, but I also find that
the record fully supports the Employer's contention that these indi-
viduals have, in fact, exercised the powers of supervisors. Each of
the machine printers testified that, although he had been told that
he had the authority of a, supervisor and although no one on behalf
of the Employer had advised him to the contrary, nevertheless, he did
not believe that he actually possessed such authority. These "opinions"
were so alike in structure as to cause an examination of the similarity.
Despite these protestations, the record discloses, according to their
own testimony, that the assistant foremen have exercised supervisory
authority. Assistant Foreman Reed discharged a member of his
crew for smoking in violation of company rules, effectively recom-
mended that his brother-in-law be employed, and "balled out" men
on his crew on several occasions; Assistant Foreman Knighton denied
that he recommended the discharge of an employee, as testified by
the Employer, but stated that he told the Employer that either the
employee would have to go or that he would quit-the employee was
fired; Assistant Foreman Smith corrected a crew member for loafing;
Assistant Foreman Bloodworth has reprimanded crew members on
several occasions; Assistant Foreman McNair denied that he fired
an employee, as testified by the Employer, but stated that he told the
facts to the superintendent of printing and the latter fired the
employee.
In addition to the foregoing, all the assistant foremen testified that
they tell their "backhelp" what to do, that they correct improper per-
formance by the "backhelp," and that the "backhelp" must take orders
and instructions from them. Further, several of the assistant foremen
testified that they considered that they had the right to transfer crew
members and effectively to recommend the discharge of crew members.
The majority finds that the above events constitute "sporadic and
infrequent" exercise of supervisory authority. Had these events oc-
curred over a period of several years, I might find some justification
for such a conclusion but, at the time of the hearing, all of the assistant
m The parties stipulated that of the approximately 90 foremen and assistant foremen
in the plant departments, half of them are assistant foremen . The parties further stipu-
lated that each of the foremen and assistant foremen, if called upon to testify, would
testify that he had full authority to hire, discharge , promote, discipline , assign, and
responsibly to direct the employees under him.
AMERICAN FINISHING COMPANY 423
foremen had held their positions less than 8 months. A daily diet of
discharges and reprimands is not a requisite of supervision; such
occurrence,,, are infrequent in any well run enterprise. Moreover,
despite their protestations to the contrary, the testimony of the assist-
ant foremen indicates that they also thought that they possessed the
powers of a supervisor, all of this in contradiction to previous testi-
mony. I further find that, in ordering the crew members to perform
certain duties, in correcting the manner of such performances, and in
reprimanding the crew members, the assistant foremen responsibly
direct the employees within the meaning of the amended At. I am
of the opinion, therefore, that the assistant foremen are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
As I have found that the assistant foremen are not craftsmen or
employees within the meaning of the Act, I would dismiss the petition.
CHAIRMAN HEEZOC, dissenting in part only.:
While I agree with the majority that the assistant foremen are
craftsmen, I share Mr. Gray's view that, on these facts, they are
supervisors within the meaning of the amended Act. I would there-
fore also dismiss the petition.