Brighton Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 220 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer Sharon Chisholm and Mary H. Hedstrom immediate and full
reinstatement to the positions they formerly held, or their equivalent, without
prejudice to seniority or other rights and priveleges, and make them whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them.
HEAREVER CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Brighton Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International
Union , United Automobile , Aircraft , and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
7-RC-3584. November 26, 1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 22, 1957, among
the employees in the agreed appropriate unit, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region. Upon
the conclusion of the election a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties. The tally of ballots shows that there were approximately
28 eligible voters and that 28 ballots were cast, of which 14 were for
the Petitioner, 12 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged.'
As the challenged ballots were sufficient to affect the results of the
election, the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made,
and on March 7, 1958, issued his report on challenged ballots and
recommendation. The Regional Director found that George Green
was a supervisor, and recommended that the challenge to his ballot
be sustained and the Petitioner be certified. The Regional Director
was unable to determine Whitehead's status and recommended that a
hearing be held for that purpose if the Board did not adopt his recom-
mendation as to Green.
Thereafter the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report, and on April 28, 1958, the Board directed that a
hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by the challenges to the
ballots of Green and Whitehead.
Thereafter, a hearing was held before Emil C. Parkas, hearing
officer. On August 25, 1958, the hearing officer issued and served upon
the parties his report, in which he found that Green was a supervisor,
and that the challenge to his ballot should therefore be sustained.
'The Petitioner challenged George Green and James Whitehead as supervisors.
122 NLRB No. 36.
BRIGHTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 221
The hearing officer also found that Whitehead was not a supervisor,
and recommended that the challenge to his ballot be overruled and
his vote counted.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the hearing
officer's findings with respect to Green. As there is no exception to
the finding as to Whitehead, it is adopted pro forma.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fannin,"].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
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.
4. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
Plymouth, Michigan, plant, including plant clerical employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the
hearing officer's report, the Employer's exceptions to both of these,
and the entire record in the case. For the reasons set forth below we
find no merit in the Employer's exceptions.
At the time of the election, the Employer was operating on two
shifts. The day shift ran from 7 to 3:30 p.ni.; the afternoon shift
from 3:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. There were about 14 employees on the
afternoon shift. Howard, the plant superintendent, and apparently
the only conceded supervisor, worked on the day shift but regularly
stayed until 5 or 6 p.m. Green reported to work about an hour be-
fore the scheduled starting time of the afternoon shift and discussed
with Howard what was to be done that night. Howard gave Green
a daily list of jobs to be run, including whether they were to be done
by male or female employees, and also listing odd jobs that could be
done if the others were completed.
After. Howard left, Green was in charge of the plant, with instruc-
tions to call Howard on matters of major importance. Green did
setup work and minor repairs. He made job assignments during a
substantial part of his working time. He was responsible for the
222 DECISIOIEfS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees' obedience to working rules, and it is clear that he told
them to go back to work when they left their assignments . There has
been no instance of disobedience to these requests. Green has also
effectively recommended the discharge of two employees.' In all the
circumstances of this case, including the fact that Howard would
otherwise appear to be the only supervisor for a two-shift operation,
we find that Green responsibly directed the work of the night shift
employees, and was therefore a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. We shall therefore sustain the challenge to his ballot.
As the Petitioner has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast,
we shall certify it as the exclusive representative of the Employer's
employees in the agreed unit.
[The Board certified International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees in the agreed-
upon unit.]
The Employer contends that no weight should be given to this because it occurred
under Howard 's predecessor , but it does not appear that Green' s duties changed signifi-
cantly when Howard took over. We therefore reject this contention.
Wichita Television Corporation Incorporated , d/b/a HARD-TV
and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees &
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the U.S. & Canada,
Motion Picture Projectionists, Local No. 414, AFL-CIO. Cases
Nos. 17-CA-1109 and 17-CA-1153. December 1, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 20, 1957, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom,
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs. The Respondent also requested oral argu-
ment. As the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties, the request for oral argument
is denied.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Members
Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
122. NLRB No. 37.