Ball Plastics Division

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 633 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

BALL PLASTICS DIVISION
Ball Plastics Division and International Union, Allied
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case
26-RC-5275
March 14, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On August 11, 1976, the Regional Director for
Region 26 issued his Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representative in which he overruled
all of the Employer's objections to conduct affecting
the resalts of the election and sustained the challeng-
es to six ballots in the election held on July 1, 1976.1
Thereafter, pursuant to National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision contending, inter alia, that he
erred in sustaining the challenges to the ballots of
Tom Noel, Richard Lane, Tony Reeves, and Jeff
Jones.
By telegraphic order dated October 15, 1976, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review insofar as it related to the challenged
ballots of Noel, Lane, Reeves, and Jones, and denied
review in all other respects.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review and
makes the following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of
molded plastic :products, with its principal place of
business in Evansville, Indiana, and with another
facility in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
The Employer's exceptions relate to the challenges
to the ballots of employees Noel, Lane, Reeves, and
Jones. Noel, Lane, and Reeves are denominated as
"group leaders" in the vacuum form department at
the Employer's facility in Fort Smith, Arkansas,
Jones is referred to as a group leader in the shipping
department at the same facility.
The Regional Director found that Noel, Lane,
Reeves, and Jones were all supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and sustained Petitioner's
challenges to their ballots. In making this determina-
tion, the Regional Director found that, as part of
their duties, these employees insure the proper
I The tally of ballots for the election showed that 13 eligible voters cast
ballots for, and 12 against, the Petitioner . Six ballots were challenged The
challenges are determinative of the results of the election.
2 By telegraphic order dated June 30, 1976, the Board issued an order
228 NLRB No. 7
633
quantity and quality of work produced, train and
instruct new employees, issue verbal reprimands, and
generally play a "major role" in the Employer's
disciplinary system.
In disputing the Regional Director's findings with
respect to the disciplinary role of the four employees
in question, the Employer asserts that Noel, Lane,
Reeves, and Jones are only conduits utilized to relay
the instructions and carry out the commands of
admitted supervisory personnel. It argues that these
individuals play no role in the formal disciplinary
system of the company and that any discipline meted
out emanates directly from admitted supervision
after personal observation of the employee in
question.
We find merit in the contentions of the Employer
that these four employees are not supervisors within
the meaning of the Act, and that the challenged
ballots of these four employees should be opened and
counted.
With respect to the group leaders in the vacuum
form department, the record reveals that these
employees spend 100 percent of their time on the
production floor and are engaged primarily in the
actual operation of the production machines. The
Employer's production schedule is determined in a
routine manner, with the use of the various machines
dictated by seniority. The highest grade of pay for
the group leaders is $4.53 per hour, while the next
highest grade (the setup man) is $4.41 per hour. The
four employees in question do not make employee
job evaluations, recommend merit increases, and
cannot grant time off, hire, or fire. The additional
responsibilities that the group leaders are engaged in
include the routine maintenance of the quantity and
quality of work produced, the training of new
employees, and the issuance of "verbal reprimands"
to employees. The first two duties are not necessarily
dispositive of the issue of supervisory status, inas-
much as these duties are often associated with either
"leadmen" or supervisory personnel. The last added
responsibility is more normally indicative of supervi-
sory status if in fact discipline is imposed through the
exercise of independent judgment on the part of the
group leaders.
With respect to employee Lane, the Regional
Director's report and the record as a whole indicate
that he does not issue warnings without first
consulting with the admitted supervisor of the
vacuum form department, Richard Huffman. On one
occasion when Lane did recommend a written
reprimand for an employee, he was overruled by
denying the Employer's request for review but directing that Quality
Control Supervisor Moore and the five "Group Leaders be allowed to vote
subject to challenge."
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Huffman. Similarly, the record reveals that Reeves
and Noel regularly consult Huffman before taking
any disciplinary action, and Huffman will normally
conduct his own independent investigation. In
support of a finding of like authority on the part of
Jones, group leader in the shipping department, the
Regional Director refers to a writeup form used by
the Employer and signed by Huffman, Jones, and the
employee. The writeup form itself does not reveal
any particular supervisory capabilities on the part of
Jones, but instead merely inquires as to whether an
employee who has voluntarily disqualified himself
from consideration for a particular job has been
given the proper instructions in order to reestablish
his former job classification. Further, it appears from
the record that whatever effect the writeup form had
it was prepared at the express instruction of the
Employer's personnel manager, Pat Eickhoff.3 While
it is true that the shipping department consists of
only Jones and another employee, Jones is specifical-
ly instructed with regard to the nature and quantity
of items to be shipped, and consults with Wiley, the
Employer's production and material controls manag-
er, on a regular basis. Similarly, while Huffman is not
always present for all three shifts in the vacuum form
department, explicit instructions are left for group
7 In making his determination as to the status of the four challenged
employees , the Regional Director relied on our decision in Berton Kirshner,
Inc, 209 NLRB 1081 (1974), for the proposition that these employees
enjoyed supervisory status. While the employee found to be a supervisor in
Berton Kirshner shared several duties similar to the employees in the instant
case, there were other factors in the Berton Kirshner decision , absent here,
which contributed to a finding of supervisory status . For instance, the
leaders to carry out, and they are instructed to call
Huffman in the event of an unusual circumstance.
In view of the foregoing, and the record as a whole,
we find that the four challenged employees do not
possess the requisite supervisory indicia to support a
finding that they are supervisors within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act. As indicated above, the
challenged employees are engaged in actual produc-
tion work for the great majority of their time, with
any additional duties being of a routine or instruc-
tional nature. Although the group leaders occasional-
ly make recommendations as to disciplinary matters,
the department foremen or the personnel manager
will not act on these recommendations without first
making their own independent investigation of the
matter.4 Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the
Regional Director for the purpose of opening and
counting the four ballots of Noel, Lane, Reeves, and
Jones and issuing a revised tally of ballots.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the instant case be, and it
hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director to open
and count the four challenged ballots of Noel, Lane,
Reeves, and Jones and issue a revised tally of ballots
and an appropriate certification.
employee found to be supervisor in Berton Kirshner regularly made out
progress reports on employees in her department which rated job
performance with respect to attitude and skills as well as recommending
wage increases. In addition, the employee in Berton Kirshner independently
issued warning notices to employees with poor lob performance ratings.
4 Wirtz Manufacturing Company, 215 NLRB 252 (1974); Risdon Manufac-
turing Company, Inc, 195 NLRB 579 (1972).