Brunswick Quick Freezer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 662 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under these circumstances , we find without merit the Employer's
exceptions , and we shall , in accordance with the recommendations of
the Regional Director , overrule the objections and certify the Peti-
tioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees in the appropriate unit."
[The Board certified International Union , United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , Local 174,
UAW (AFL-CIO), as the designated collective -bargaining represent-
ative of the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
plant located at 14575 Meyers Road, Detroit, Michigan , including
dockmen and shipping clerks, but excluding truckdrivers , drivers,
driver-installers , office clerical employees , professional employees,
draftsmen , design engineers , technical employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.]
13 In view of our decision herein , the Employer 's request for a hearing is denied.
Brunswick Quick Freezer , Inc. and Seafarers International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, Atlantic and Gulf District, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 10-RC-37411. March 18,1957
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 Paul L. Harper,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the 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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) (7) of the Act.
The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Petitioner made an insufficient showing of interest because the hear-
ing officer included in his computation several authorization cards
submitted at the hearing. Alternatively, it moves that the authen-
ticity of the signatures on these additional cards be verified against
the Employer's records or that the Board redetermine the Petitioners
showing of interest against a later payroll list than the one it submitted
at the hearing.
It appears that the Employer submitted at the hearing for, the
first time the customary payroll list required by the Board covering
117 NLRB No. 98.
BRUNSWICK QUICK FREEZER, INC. 663
the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the filing of
the petition. It also appears that the hearing officer after checking,
in accordance with Board practice, the authorization cards, which
included several cards presented at the hearing, was satisfied with the
sufficiency of the showing of interest and proceeded with the hearing.
No contention is made that any cards were tainted by fraud or,mis-
representation.
It is well established that the sufficiency of a petitioner's showing
of interest is a question for administrative determination not sub-
ject to collateral attack. Moreover, we are administratively satisfied,
as was the hearing officer, that the Petitioner has made a sufficient
showing of interest. We further find that no proper ground exists
for a redetermination of such interest. Accordingly, we deny the
Employer's motions.'
The Employer also moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that
an alleged local union of the Petitioner known as Savannah Branch
is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
It bases its motion on some references in the record to the existence
of a Savannah Branch, which, the Employer urges, means a local
labor organization. However, the record as a whole discloses that
the so-called Savannah Branch is not a labor organization. On the
contrary, it appears to us that the term is nothing more than a
geographical designation of the Petitioner's office in Savannah,
Georgia. We therefore are administratively satisfied that the Peti-
tioner is in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act
Accordingly, we find no merit in the Employer's contention and hereby
deny its motion to dismiss.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees at the Employer's
Brunswick, Georgia, plant, with the usual exclusions. The Em-
ployer does not question the appropriateness of this unit. However,
the parties are in disagreement with respect to the status of four
leadermen and the plant engineer whom the Petitioner- would ex-
clude from the unit as supervisors, but whom the Employer would
include.
The Employer is engaged in the quick freezing and processing of
seafood. It employs some 324 piece-rate and hourly rated employees
in 4 departments : the peeling department, the machine wrapping de-
partment, the breading department, and the receiving and shipping
department. Approximately 100 employees are employed in the peel-
ing department under Leaderman W. R. Jones; an average of 15
employees in the wrapping machine department under Leaderman
C. O. Midgett; about 200 employees in the breading department -under
Leaderman Mrs. C. O. Midgett; and about 30 employees in the receiv-
ing and shipping department under Leaderman George Chaney. The
1 The She//leld Corporation, 108 NLRB 349.
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant engineer has no regularly assigned employees working under
him.
The plant manager 2 testified that neither the leadermen nor the
plant engineer have authority to hire, discharge, or effect changes in
the employment status of employees or effectively to recommend such
action. He further testified, however, that it was customary for the,
four leadermen and the plant engineer to meet with him and the,
assistant plant manager at the end of each day to receive complete
instructions for the following day's operations. He also testified that
it is the leadermen's responsibility to see that these instructions are
carried out and to report an employee's improper performance of his
work; and that in the execution of their responsibility, leadermen
make recommendations respecting the discharge or transfer of em-
ployees. Furthermore, the plant manager admitted that in the case•
of machine breakdowns, Leaderman C. 0. Midgett has the authority
to transfer the machine operators to other machines, or to assign them
to help other employees until such times as the machine was fixed.
Moreover, although leadermen work along with their employees, it
appears that they do so only to the extent necessary to keep the work
flowing. In view of the responsibilities exercised by the leadermen
and the fact that if the leadermen are to be deemed nonsupervisory,
as the Employer contends, there would be the unusually high ratio of
324 employees to 1 immediate supervisor,' we find that leadermen have
the authority responsibly to direct the work of the employees in their
respective departments and hence are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit.4
The plant engineer is responsible for the maintenance and repair
of all plant equipment and machinery. Whenever his work is such
that additional help is needed, the plant engineer is authorized to ob-
tain other employees to assist him. Thereafter, while performing this
work, the employees so detailed are directed by the plant engineer.
In view of the foregoing and the fact that the plant engineer attends
the daily supervisory meetings and is paid on a salary basis as are
the other supervisory personnel, we find that the plant engineer is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act.' Accordingly, we shall
exclude him from the unit.
We find that all employees at the Employer's Brunswick, Georgia,
plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, leadermen, and the plant engineer, and all other supervisors
2 The parties are in agreement that the Plant manager and assistant plant manager
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and should be excluded from the unit.
a The record indicates that the assistant plant manager is the one who supervises all
production , and in addition supervises directly a section of the peeling department, known,
as the "kettles" section
4 Meyer Hammerman, etc., d/b/a Jolty Kids Togs , 117 NLRB 393.
6 River Brand Rice Malls , Inc, 112 NLRB 1349, 1351.
OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION 665
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation , Forest Products Division
and Office Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 15-RC-1488. March 18,1957
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 T. Lacey, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers].
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 1 involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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. The Employer operates five plants in West Monroe, Louisiana.
The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to laboratory employees, inspec-
tors, and timekeepers at 1 of the 5 plants, Plant No. 31, which houses
the Employer's pulp and paper mills.z In the alternative, it requests
any unit at that plant which might be appropriate. The Employer
contends that the unit sought is too limited in scope and that the time-
keepers may not appropriately be included in the same unit with
laboratory employees and inspectors; it does not, however, contest the
appropriateness of a unit limited to employees at Plant No. 31. The
Employer currently recognizes certain unions, who did not seek to
I The status of the Petitioner as a labor organization was placed in issue by the
Employer The record shows that the Petitioner exists for the purpose of representing
employees in all matters affecting working conditions including, inter alma, rates of pay
and hours of employment Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act
8 At the other four plants the paper is subject to further processing
117 NLRB No. 102.