Denver and Ephrata Telephone and Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 954 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DENVER AND EPHRATA TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-
1988 . May 21, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
On September 17, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and
Order Directing Hearing in which it directed that a hearing be
held relating to the supervisory status of John H. Weller, whose
challenged ballot affected the result of an election.' Pursuant
thereto, a hearing was held before Herbert B. Mintz, hearing
officer. The Employer and the Petitioner appeared and partici-
pated. On February 24, 1954, the hearing officer issued and
served upon the parties his report on challenged ballot, in which
he found that Weller was not a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act and recommended that the Employer's challenge of
Weller's vote be overruled and that the ballot be opened and
counted. The Employer filed exceptions to the hearing officer's
report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing
officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the hearing officer's report, the exceptions and
brief filed by the Employer, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby finds merit in the Employer's exceptions.
The hearing officer found that although Weller had the
authority to direct the work of employees, the exercise of this
authority was routine in nature and did not require the use of
independent judgment. He therefore found that Weller was not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We do not agree.
The record shows that Weller, a line crew foreman, is in
charge of from 3 to 6 employees who are classified as line-
men, junior linemen, groundmen, and drivers. Weller and his
crew are engaged in the construction and maintenance of tele-
phone poles and lines. According to Weller's own testimony, he
sees that the work is "done right" and determines the priority
of jobs, the necessity for working overtime, and the time for
lunch breaks. Weller also testified that he recommended to
Superintendent Powell the transfer to driver from groundman
for employee Zartman; the transfer from groundman to lineman
for employee Weidman; and that one of them obtained a wage
increase along with the job transfer. Weller also recommended
to Powell that employee Matt would never make a lineman and
that that employee was transferred to another department.
Upon the entire record, we are satisfied that Weller not only
has the authority responsibly to direct the employees who work
1106 NLRB 1134. Aside from Weller's ballot, 40 votes were cast for the Petitioner and
40 against.
108 NLRB No. 132.
SAGINAW HARDWARE COMPANY 955
under him, but also uses independent judgment in exercising
such authority . Moreover , Weller has the authority effectively
to recommend the change of status of his crewmen . Accordingly,
we find that Weller is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act, 2 and we hereby sustain the Employer's challenge to his
ballot.
As the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the valid
ballots cast in the election , we shall certify the results of the
election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive
representative of, the employees of the Employer in the appro-
priate unit.]
2 See Jackson Electric Membership Corporation, 106 NLRB 1019.
SAGINAW HARDWARE COMPANY and LEO A. PIETRZAK,
Petitioner and LOCAL NO. 10, OFFICE EMPLOYEES IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION, AFL
SAGINAW HARDWARE COMPANY and MAXINE OSTERBECK,
GWENN RUPP, FLORENCE SCHULER, Petitioners and
LOCAL NO. 10, OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL. Cases Nos . 7-RD-166 and 7-RD-169. May 21,
1954
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Robert Pisarski, hearing officer. At the hearing, the Union
moved to dismiss the petitions on several grounds. For reasons
stated infra, the motions are hereby denied. The hearing of-
ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. Petitioners, employees of the Employer, have filed peti-
tions asserting that the Union, currently recognized by the Em-
ployer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a repre-
sentative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the em-
ployees involved in this matter.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
108 NLRB No. 131.