Charlotte Tank Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1459 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

CHARLOTTE TANK CORPORATION 1459
tent of association between electricians and instrument mechanics-
Accordingly, we shall not include them in the group of electricians.';
In accordance with the foregoing, we shall direct that elections
be conducted in the following voting groups of employees at the Em-
ployer's Fort Edward, New York, plant:
(1) All millwrights and shift mechanics and their helpers;
(2) All electricians and their helpers.
If a majority of the employees in either voting group vote for the
union seeking to represent them- separately, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the labor organization thus se-
lected in each group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds
to' be., an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 2-RC-7352.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MuRDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections.
'=. North.A,nerican Aviation, Inc., 108 NLRB 863, 865.
Charlotte Tank Corporation and International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, Local No. 30, AFL,' Petitioner . Case No. 11-RC-786.
December 22,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Martin L.
Ball, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
'hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon theentire record in this case, the Board finds :
1.' ThO Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
ft (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's tank fabricating plant in Char-
x As the AFL and CIO merged after the hearing herein, we are taking notice thereof
and amending the designation of the Petitioner accordingly.
114 NLRB No. 232.
387644--56-vol. 114-93
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lotte; -North Carolinti, but -would 'exclude- therefrom the truckdri vei•s'
and janitors, contending that they have no'community of interest with
production employees. The Petitioner would also exclude 2 testers,
1 inspector, 1 shipper, and 1 truck tank mounter on the ground that
they are supervisors. The Employer opposes the exclusion of these
categories and individuals, urging that the first have a community of
interest with the production and maintenance employees and that
the latter are not supervisors.
The Employer fabricates steel tanks for liquified petroleum gas.
This work is.carried on in a plant set up as a long continuous line
beginning in the fabricating portion of the shop where the metal is
rolled and formed and ending in the yard where truck tanks are
permanently mounted on customers' trucks and other types of portable
tanks are loaded on the Employer's delivery trucks. The various
stages of tank production are not administratively departmentalized
other than fora separation of office from the shop.
In addition to the general manager, the assistant manager, and the
accountant who primarily devote their time to administrative and
managerial, interests of the Employer, the supervisory staff includes
a plant superintendent and an,assistant plant superintendent other
wise known as the shop foreman. The shop foreman devotes his
entire time to the supervision of the work carried on in the shop and
yard. The plant superintendent- spends approximately one-half of
his time in 'his office but otherwise supervises the shop. There are a
total of 50 employees, approximately 38 of whom are engaged in work
related directly to production, maintenance, and delivery. Of these
38 employees, 12 welders and 6 helpers work at any area of the shop
or yard where they are needed.
There are three truckdrivers who make deliveries of tanks to cus-
tomers. These employees are guaranteed a 40-hour week and because
they are not fully occupied with truckdriving duties they maintain
their own equipment and work in the shop wherever needed in order
to complete the guaranteed number of hours. They are hired by the
plant superintendent and are under the same supervision as the `shop
and yard,employees. In these circumstances we find that truckdrivers
have interests related to those of other production and maintenance
employees, and as no union seeks to represent them separately we
shall include them in the unit.2
Two janitors are engaged in keeping the offices and shop clean.
Office janitorial work is performed in the morning before office hours.
Thereafter, these employees devote their time in the shop to sweeping
shavings, performing utility work, and running errands such as bring-
ing tools from storage. We find that their work is directly related to
a Intel national Minerals & Chemical Corporation , 104 NLRB 1069, 1071
CHARLOTTE TANK CORPORATION- - ^ , , 1461
production and-maintenance, operations and -we shall include them-in
the,- uliit 3- - '
-, The five individuals alleged by the Petitioner. to be supervisors
have never been given nor have they exercised the power. to hire, dis-
charge, lay off,. reprimand, discipline; promote, suspend, assign, or
-effectively to recommend such action. - They are paid on an hourly
-basis as are, other shop employees, receive the same benefits and vaca,
tions, and are under the same supervision. -
With regard to the shipper, the Petitioner's allegation of super-
'v'isory authority is based upon the fact that the shipper prepares the
shipping orders and presents them, as the product covered comes off
the production line, to an employee in the yard where the orders are
used to determine the customer's truck chassis upon which truck tanks
are to be mounted or to determine the loading and delivery schedule
of other types of tanks. The record shows that the shipper obtains
the information to prepare the orders from written information sup-
plied the shop superintendent by the accountant. We find that
.the duties of the shipper are in the nature of a plant clerical employee
rather than supervisory.' We shall therefore include the shipper in
the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
The Petitioner bases its contention that each of the remaining 4
contested individuals are supervisors upon an announcement by the
,plant superintendent that these individuals would be responsible for
the flow of work in their particular areas of the plant operation; that
production problems of any employee working in their respective areas
should be taken up with these individuals rather than occupying the
time of either the shop foreman or the plant superintendent; and that
each of these individuals may seek out and obtain help for his area
.when needed from employees engaged in any of the other 3 areas with-
out consulting the shop foreman or the plant superintendent. The
Petitioner contends that these four individuals thereby have authority
to responsibly direct other employees. The Employer, on the other
hand, contends that these individuals merely act in a capacity com-
parable to a nonsupervisory group leader or skilled craftsman.
As noted above, the production arrangement is such that very few
of the employees are assigned at a stationary position in any particular
portion of the 250-foot production line. Instead, a relatively large
number of helpers and welders, comprising almost two-thirds of the
production personnel,5 are required to work in any area of the plant
3 Pacific Moulded Products, 111 NLRB 882 , 884; United States Rubber Company,
113 NLRB 746.
See The Diamond Match Company, 108 NLRB 183, 185.
5 Of the total of 38 plant employees , 5 are classified as maintenance , utility, or janitors
and sweepers and 3 are truckdrivers. Of the remaining 30 in the plant and yard who may
be regarded as production employees , 12 are welders and 7 are helpers , leaving only 11
who are assigned to relatively stationary duties. Five of these eleven , including the
shipper referred to above, are alleged to be supervisors.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or yard whenever and wherever their skills or services are needed.
Welders and helpers are directed by the foreman to those areas where
the status of the work requires their services at the particular time,
but as the work progresses and circumstances create a shift in the need
for their assistance, they may be directed to another area.
Each of the four individuals alleged to be a supervisor is a senior
employee in his area and devotes substantially full time to his par-
ticular assignments Because the shop foreman covers the entire pro-
duction line and may not be present when the need for the services of
a welder or helper arises in a particular area, the senior employee in
each of the four areas is required to observe the needs of his particular
area, call for such additional assistance needed from those employees
available in any other area, and indicate the service required at the
moment. Thus, a tester may need a helper to turn on the water while
he watches the pressure and checks for leaks or weak seams , but when
he discovers a defect in the tank the helper is no longer needed for that
operation at that time and is free to be of assistance elsewhere in the
plant. At this point the tester would need a welder to correct the
defect and would indicate to the welder where the defect was located.
From the entire record it appears that helpers and welders, and at
times other employees, are required to perform their services wherever
needed in the shop or yard, and that the four senior employees act as
group leaders in their respective areas. When, in the absence 'of the
shop foreman, the group leader calls for the assistance or skill of an
available employee, he merely indicates to that employee what service
is needed. Any direction as may be involved is clearly of a routine
nature not involving independent judgment. The Board has held
that routine direction does not constitute supervisory authority within
the meaning of the Act .7 As none of the contested employees have or
exercise the authority to make or effectively recommend changes in
personnel status, we find that they are not supervisors as defined in
the Act. Accordingly, we shall include the testers, inspector, and
truck tank mounter in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
• The two testers test propane and butane tanks for strength and leaks , using the
specified pressure required by each. One uses water pressure while the other uses air to
test the tanks. The testing process requires assistance from other employees. Helpers
are generally used for this purpose but some of the other employees who are paid at the
same rate as testers at times assist in testing. If leaks are found welding is required
and generally welders are called upon to seal any leaks although one of the testers also
does some welding . The truck tank mounters-only one of whom is alleged to be super-
visory-permanently mount the tank on the ' customer 's truck. This process requires
1 or 2 helpers and involves fixing the frame for the tank to the truck, mounting the tank
by bolting and welding it in place , and attaching carrying racks. In addition to the
2 truck tank mounters located in the yard, 1 of the testers at times mounts truck tanks.
Although truck tank mounters do some welding , welders usually perform such work in
mounting the tanks and attaching fixtures. The inspector works along the forming and
rolling portion of the production line. He is primarily concerned with guiding the orders
for tanks through the shop and watching the quality of the product as it progresses.
T See The Clinton Construction Company, 107 NLRB 946; Sidney Blumenthal & Co.,
113 NLRB 791.
MID-SOUTH PACKERS, INC. 1463
! 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 at the Charlotte, North
Carolina, plant of the Employer, including truckdrivers, shippers,
testers, inspectors, and truck tank mounters, but excluding office cleri-
cal employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Mid-South Packers, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local Union 591, AFL-CIO , Joint Petition-
ers. Case No. 32-RC-763. December 22, 1955
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
. Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction
of Election 1 dated October 28, 1954, an election by secret ballot was
conducted in this proceeding on November 23, 1954, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Re-
gion, among employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties.
The tally shows that of the 145 votes cast in the election, 66 were for,
and 64 votes were against, the Joint Petitioners, with 15 votes being
challenged.
On November 29, 1954, the Joint Petitioners filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director
thereupon investigated the objections and challenges. On May 27,
1955, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties a
report on challenged ballots and objections. The Employer filed time-
ly exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Inasmuch as certain of
the Regional Director's recommendations as to the challenged ballots
were not excepted to, and the Regional Director had recommended that
these challenges be overruled and the votes counted, the Board by a
Second Supplemental Decision and Order 2 ordered the counting of
these votes. The latest revised tally of ballots shows that 67 votes
were cast for, and 72 votes cast against, the Petitioners and that there
1110 NLRB 628.
2 113 NLRB 910
114 NLRB No. 230.