Brexner Tanning Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 822 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Buyer-general; buyers-special. The buyer-general purchases elec-
trical equipment and operating supplies; the buyers-special purchase
castings, forgmgs, and smaller machine parts These employees inter-
view prospective customers and suppliers, `and effectuate purchases
They have authority to cancel an order if the vendor does not meet
a scheduled delivery date, and may place the order with an alternate
company Although they must have technical knowledge in the per-
formance of their duties, we find the buyer-general and buyers-special
to be managerial employees We therefore exclude them 17
Accordingly, we find the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act
All technical employees at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
plant, including tool designers, subsupervisor of tool design, process
planners, application leadmen, standards engineers, tune-study men,
draftsmen, apprentice draftsmen, process engineers, methods planners,
machine tool procurement engineer, methods engineers, methods
engineer trainees, advertising assistant, commercial photographer and
assistants, servicemen, service trainees, service engineers, field service
engineers, sales correspondents-special machinery, special machine
estimator, project engineer, order planners, load and schedule analyst,
and tabulating technician, but excluding sales correspondents-servo
machinery sales, export sales correspondent, repair parts analysts,
load planners, expediters, assistant traffic manager, editor and re-
porter, methods clerk, technical clerk, cost clerk, cost accountant,
tabulating machine operators, subsupervisor tabulating, buyer-
general, buyers-special, and all other employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
17 Mack Trucks, Inc ,116 NLRB 1576, 1578
Brezner Tanning Corporation and Leather Workers International
Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO. Case No 1-RC--61,00 September 12, 1,958 ,
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on
February 17, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on
March 6, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
1 Unpubhshe0
121 NLRB No 109
BREZNER TANNING CORPORATION 823
Director for the First Region. At the conclusion of the election, the
parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which shows that, 24
ballots were cast. Of these, 7 were for the Petitioner, 9 were for the
Intervenor, and 8 were challenged. '
The challenges were sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election . On March 12, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
the election. After investigation of the objections and challenges, the
Regional Director, on April 11, 1958, issued and served upon the
parties his consolidated report on objections and challenged ballots.
In his report, the Regional Director found the objections to be with-
out merit and recommended that they be overruled. As to the chal-
lenged ballots, the Regional Director recommended that the -chal-
lenges to the ballots of employees Oilshver, Giusti, McHugh, and
Sonberg be overruled, and that the challenges as to employees
Saunders, Parker, Shyp, and Dilday be sustained. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members.Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
Objections
1. No exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director' s recom-
mendations that objections 1, 3, and 4 be overruled. We therefore
adopt these recommendations. '
2. With respect to the remaining objection 2, the Petitioner alleged
that the Employer coerced or attempted to intimidate employees to
vote for the Intervenor. In support thereof, an employee asserted
that on the morning of the election, Foreman Polsky asked him if his
wife was working. When the employee answered "No," Polsky
allegedly told him to use his head when he voted. This employee
stated that -he told Polsky in November 1957 that he had signed a
card for the Petitioner. We agree with the Regional Director that
this objection should be overruled. In view of the ambiguous,nature
of Polsky's alleged remarks, we agree that they contained no threat
or admonition of sufficiently substantial character to have had any
effect on the election. We therefore overrule this objection.
Challenges
1. The Petitioner challenged the ballots of Joseph Oilshver, Hugo
Giusti, William McHugh, and Jerome Sonberg on the ground that
they are supervisors under the Act. The Regional Director found
that none of these individuals was a supervisor and recommended that
all four challenges be overruled. The Petitioner has excepted to this
recommendation.
'824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Joseph Oilshver is employed as an hourly rated sliipper. He per-
forms the customary, shipping duties and prepares shipping papers,
bills-of-lading, etc. He receives from Foreman Polsky working in-
structions and customers' orders. One unskilled employee"works with
them and_ assists in tying and loading leather bundles preparatory for
shipment. Oilshver may instruct this assistant and others 'tempo-
rarily assigned to assist. However, the Regional Director found such
instruction to be of a routine character. Although Foreman Polsky
allegedly fired 2 employees when Oilshver reported 1 for being late
for work and 1 for not tying bundles fast enough, the Regional
Director considered that these incidents, even if true, indicated a mere
'inability to accomplish group work with those whom, Polsky had
assigned. ' No other evidence was presented or adduced to support the
alleged supervisory status of Oilshver. In these circumstances and
in agreement with the Regional- Director, we find that Oilshver is not
'a supervisor. Accordingly, we overrule the challenge to this ballot.
Hugo Giusti,*William McHugh, and Jerome Sonberg are employed
as leather sorters whose primary duties comprise the sorting and
grading of skins according to character, color, and quality. It is a
highly skilled and responsible occupation; each of these sorters has
had long experience and is paid an hourly rate substantially higher
than the unskilled leather handlers. - -
According to the Regional Director, about 2 months before the elec-
tion, Giusti allegedy expressed his lack of interest therein because he
expected to'be,a foreman in the near future; and that shortly after-
wards Giusti succeeded Harold Caro, deceased, who had been foreman
but became a floor boss when Polsky took over his job. Likewise
Giusti is alleged to have told Polsky "Not to come upstairs to his
.department and tell his guys what to do because he gets them all
fouled up.", Further, it is alleged that Giusti told Polsky "I am in
charge' of that floor and I intend to run it." In these circumstances,
as there is insufficient information either in the Regional Director's
report or in the exceptions from which we can make a finding as to
the supervisory status of Giusti, we do not adopt the Regional Di-
.rector's recommendation with respect. to this ballot. Instead, we
shall order -that - a hearing be held to determine Giusti's status if it
becomes apparent that his ballot will be determinative of the election
results. '
William McHugh is alleged to have told an employee.to tie bundles,
and upon the latter's refusal, McHugh told the employee to tell
Foreman Polsky. Polsky told the employee "to do what -McHugh
told him or he would have to leave." McHugh does not have authority
to hire or fire or initiate personnel action. At certain times when
McHugh wanted help from other departments he would ask Polsky
2 Diamond Match Company, 108 NLRB 183, 185, 186.
BREZNER TANNING CORPORATION 825
and if Polsky were absent, McHugh allegedy would call the man him-
self. As it does not appear that he responsibly directs employees in
the performance of their duties and otherwise does not possess super-
visory authority, we find he is not a supervisor. Accordingly, we
adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that the challenge to
McHugh's ballot be overruled.
Jerome Sonberg is alleged to replace Foreman Polsky- when the
latter is sick or on vacation or during. the last hour of the working
day when Polsky apparently leaves early. On one occasion Polsky
told an' employee to sweep up and subsequently Sonberg is alleged to
have told the employee not to report the next day if the job were not
finished by 6 p. m. The employee's version of this incident is that;
Sonberg whom he does not consider as his boss told him to•hurry up
so that they could get out earlier. Sonberg does not have authority
to hire or fire or initiate personnel action. Under. these circumstances,
it appears that the supervisory authority, if any, exercised by Sonberg
is of a sporadic nature and therefore, we find he is 'not a supervisor,
within the meaning of the Act.' Accordingly, we adopt the Regional
Director's recommendation that the challenge to Sonberg's ballot be
overruled.
2. The ballots of laid-off employees Jesse Saunders, Willie Parker,
Leo Shyp, and William Dilday were challenged by the Board agent
for the reason that the naives of these individuals were not on the
eligibility list furnished by the Employer. None of these persons was
working during the eligibility period nor on the date of the election.
The Regional Director found that none was in a temporary layoff
status as of the date of the election, and recommended that all
four challenges be sustained. The Petitioner has excepted to this
recommendation. I , , ' ' • I , .
Dilday was laid off on December 27, 1957, .while- Saunders was laid
off on January, 3, and Parker and Shyp, on January 110, 195 In its
exceptions, the Petitioner asserts that each of these employees was
told, at the time of his layoff,,that he'would be'recall'ed "`when work
picked up again," and that when Parker unsuccessfully contacted the
Employer about work a few days before the election; he was `told 'to
`ikeep -in touch." However, the Regional Director's investigation dis
closes-a policy''on the part of the Employer to consider laid-off- em--
ployees, such, as the employees, in question, as having been terminated;
and no such employees have been recalled. ' It also' appears' from the
Regional Director's' report that the Employer anticipates a further
reduction o'f-its force and has no'plans for recalling any of the>laid-oft
employees within'the forseeable future. 'Under all- the circumstances,
we find that, as of the time of the election, Saunders; Parker, Shyp, and
a Fanny ; Farmer Candy Bhop8, Ino., 112 NLRB 299, 301.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
' Dilday had no reasonable expectancy of recall in the near future.''
Accordingly, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that
they were ineligible to vote. The challenges to their ballots are there-
fore sustained.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the First Region
shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and
count the ballots of Oilshver, McHugh, and Sonberg, and serve upon;
the parties a revised tally of ballots.]
[The Board ordered that, in the event that the ballots of Oilshver,.
McHugh and Sonberg, do not determine the results of the election, a
hearing be held before a hearing officer, for the purpose of determining
the eligibility of Giusti to vote in the election; and in the event a,
hearing is held, the hearing officer shall serve upon the parties a report
containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact,
and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said
challenges. Within ten (10) days from the date of issuance of the
report, any party may file with the Board in Washington, D. C., an
original and six copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately upon the
filing of such exceptions, the party filing shall serve a copy upon each
of the parties, and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. If no,
exceptions are filed the Board will adopt the, hearing officer's recom-
mendations.]
[The Board further ordered that, in the event a hearing is held, the
above-entitled matter be referred to the Regional Director.]
' Shaw-Randall Company, Ino., 116 NLRB 444.
H. E. Fletcher Co. and United Stone and Allied Product Workers'
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. I -RC-5258i Sep-
tember 12, 1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On June 27, 1958, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election was conducted under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region among the
employees in the agreed-upon unit. Following the election, the Re-
gional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed
that of approximately 385 eligible voters, 385 cast ballots, of which
198 were for the Petitioner, 123 were against Petitioner, and 64 ballots
were challenged. The challenged ballots are not sufficient in number
toaffect the results of the election.
On July 1, 1958, the Employer filed timely objections to the conduct
affecting the results of the election. After an investigation, the
121 NLRB No. 114.