Dixon Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 1446 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dixon Industries, Inc. and International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 17-RC-8749
February 28, 1980
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections and determi-
native challenges to an election held on June 14, 1979,'
and the Hearing Officer's report recommending dispo-
sition of same. The Board has reviewed the record in
light of the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts
the Hearing Officer's findings2 and recommendations,'
pertinent portions of which are attached hereto as an
appendix.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and
that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the foregoing labor
organization is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the following appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time hourly-paid
production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at its Coffeyville, Kansas,
facility but excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
MEMBER TRUESDALE, concurring and dissenting in
part:
' The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was: 30 for, and 25 against, the Petitioner;
there were 5 challenged ballots, a sufficient number to affect the results.
: In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Hearing
Officer's recommendations that the challenges to the ballots of Calvin Harvey,
Jr.. and George McDuffee be overruled. However, as we further adopt the
Hearing Officer's recommendations that the other challenges be sustained, the
ballots of Harvey and McDuffee are no longer determinative. Accordingly, we
shall not direct that these ballots be opened and we shall certify the Petitioner.
Tucson Gas & Electric Company, 241 NLRB 181 (1979), relied upon by
our dissenting colleague, is factually distinguishable from the case under
consideration herein. Thus, the leadman at issue in Tucson was directly and
actively supervised by two admitted supervisors having clear authority over
the department in which that leadman was employed. In the case we here
247 NLRB No. 185
Like my colleagues, I would adopt the Hearing
Officer's report with respect to the Employer's objec-
tions. I would not, however, adopt his recommenda-
tion that the challenges to the ballots of Obbie Estes,
Steve Reedy, and John Burris be sustained on the
ground that they are supervisors. To the contrary, the
record shows that these three, albeit leadmen with
some extra responsibility, are regular employees who
do not act as supervisors as that term is defined in the
Act. I would therefore overrule the challenges and
remand this case to the Regional Director for opening
and counting of the ballots, the issuance of a final
tally, and certification of representative or determina-
tion of result.
Estes, Burris, and Reedy occupy comparable posi-
tions as leadmen: Estes in the transaxle department,
Burris on the assembly line, and Reedy in the
fabrication and mill department. The record shows
that these leadmen spend most of their day working
alongside other employees. They do not participate in
any way in the hiring or firing of employees. They do
not formally review the work performance of employ-
ees, and they do not attend supervisory meetings.
They are hourly paid.
Nevertheless, the Hearing Officer found them to be
supervisors because the leadmen train employees,
assign them work, reassign employees, assign over-
time, and sometimes give employees permission to
leave work early. Moreover, as found by the Hearing
Officer, in one instance, one leadman orally recom-
mended to a supervisor that one of the employees
should receive a wage increase.
The fact that these individuals perform these duties,
however, does not establish that they are supervisors,
for it is clear from the record that in performing these
duties they are merely carrying out established compa-
ny policy. They act as a more experienced employee
training other employees in the routine performance of
the job, directing them, as needed, to carry out the
work. They are not, however, involved in establishing
company policy. Moreover, they do not formally
evaluate employee work; they do not discipline em-
ployees for failing to perform and, while they have
criticized employees who have not performed proper-
ly, nothing in the record shows that that criticism is
consider Production Manager Luther Webb and First-Shift Supervisor Bill
Banks, the two individuals immediately superior to Estes. Reedy, and Burris
in the chain of command. are only present for brief periods of time in the areas
where Estes, Reedy, and Burris are situated. Moreover. Webb and Banks are
not intimately engaged in the day-to-day production process carried on in
those areas. Thus, it is clear that Estes, Ready, and Burris exercise a greater
degree of independent judgment than did the leadman at issue in Tucson.
While Member Penello agrees with the Hearing Officer that the misrepre-
sentations alleged in the Employer's objections do not warrant setting aside
the election, he so finds for the reasons set forth in Sopping Kart Food
Market. Inc.. 228 NLRB 1311 (1977), the principles of which he still adheres
to. See his dissenting opinion in General Knit of California. Inc.. 239 NLRB
619 (1978).
1446
DIXON INDUSTRIES
used for formal disciplinary action of any kind. In
addition, while one leadman, in one isolated instance,
recommended a wage increase, the record shows that
his recommendation was ignored. Finally, with respect
to overtime, the record shows that the leadmen do not
determine the overtime hours of the employees. They
are told that overtime is needed, and they- ask
employees if they will work overtime. With respect to
permission to leave early, the leadmen merely carry
out established company policy, acting as a conduit
between the employee and management.
Finally, the leadmen's duties as found by the
Hearing Officer are virtually identical to those of the
leadmen in Tucson Gas & Electrical Company, 241
NLRB 181 (1979). In that case the Board reversed a
regional director and found that the leadmen in
question were employees, not supervisors. As in this
case, the leadmen in Tucson Gas had orally repri-
manded employees, scheduled overtime, and assigned
work. The Board concluded, however, that these
duties were routine in nature since the leadmen merely
carried out established company policy. Here, as
there, the critical consideration is the absence of any
authority on the part of the leadmen to hire, fire,
evaluate, discipline, promote, or effectively recom-
mended such actions. Accordingly, I dissent.
APPENDIX
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS ANI) RFCOMMENDATIONS
I. THI CHALLI.ENGED BAILILOTS
A. Background
The following undisputed facts show that the Employer is
located in Coffeyville, Kansas, where it operates a plant
which is engaged in the manufacture of lawn mowing
equipment. The Employer has a 2 shift operation, i.e., 7:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.' The production
area is a 150 feet by 400 feet steel building. There are
approximately 45 production employees on the first shift
and 15 production employees on second shift.
It is undisputed that the Employer's President K. O.
Dixon; Production Manager Luther Webb; First shift
supervisor Bill Banks; second shift supervisor Jess Kerns
and Weld shop supervisor Jim Hoggett are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and I so find.4 While the
Employer has an oral and written reprimand policy, only
Dixon and Webb have issued written reprimands while the 3
other undisputed supervisors have only issued oral repri-
mands. It is further undisputed that the 4 voters challenged
by the Petitioner as supervisors do not have the authority to
hire or fire employees or effectively recommend such action.
The first shift works an hour-5 day week, while the second shift works a
10 hour-4 day week.
B. The Employer's "Employment Policies"
It is undisputed that the Employer distributes a 13 page
pamphlet entitled "Employment Policies" to each employee
when that person is hired. That pamphlet, which contains 23
numbered provisions reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
4. The Employee's Supervisor
The employee's supervisor is the link with the Company
and advises the new employee of job duties and
Company procedures. Employees should contact their
supervisors with any problems concerning employment.
6. Company Benefits
C. Vacations
3. Vacations will be scheduled by the employee's
supervisor who will consider preferences whenever
possible.
9. Absences and Tardiness
When overtime work is required, supervisors may
contact employees regarding availability to be sched-
uled for overtime ...
10. Leave of Absence
. . A personal leave of absence must be requested in
writing by all employees to their supervisor noting the
exact reason for the requested leave. The supervisor will
process the request through the proper channels and
will notify the employee whether or not the leave was
approved.
Employees should not leave their jobs until notified that
their leave of absence has been approved. An emergency
leave may be requested by calling the immediate
supervisor or the Personnel Department.
11. Maternity Policy
. . . As soon as pregnancy is confirmed by a physician,
the employee should notify her supervisor immediate-
ly ....
12. General Rules
A. Infractions subject to the following disciplinary
actions:
First Offense - verbal reprimand by supervisor
(supervisor will send memo to Personnel Department
for employee's file).
Second Offense (within 90 days of first offense) -
written reprimand by supervisor (copy to employee and
copy to Personnel Department for employee's file).
Third Offense (within 90 days of second offense) -
Termination.
5. Leaving Plant - Leaving the Plant during work-
ing hours without proper authorization.
7. Company Telephones - Using Company telephones
for personal calls during work shift. Calls may be
made during break periods with permission of super-
visor.
Dixon and Webh are salaried Banks and Hoggeti make 7.75 per hour.
Kerns makes S6.90 per hour.
1447
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Infractions subject to immediate termination:
2. Company Property - Failure of an employee to
report to the supervisor any damage to Company
property or the misuse of any tools; This includes
defacing the walls in the restrooms.
13. Safety Rules
5. If not thoroughly familiar with any equipment,
request instructions from a supervisor before operating.
Use the right tool for the job.
9. Report to the supervisor in charge, at once, any
unsafe condition or situation that is observed.
10. Report every injury to a supervisor immediately.
12. Operation of fork lifts by unauthorized persons is
not permitted. No one is authorized to operate fork lift
unless designated and instructed to by the production
supervisor.
14. Accidents
In the event of an industrial injury, Dixon Industries,
Inc. employees will receive full legal compensation. The
Company is insured to meet the requirements of the
Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Kansas.
To be eligible, employees are required to report all
accidents, no matter how minor, to their supervisor at
once, and they must complete an accident form within
forty-eight (48) hours after an accident occurs. If
medical treatment is required, the employee must be
treated by a Company-designated physician.
15. Entering and Leaving the Plant
. . .Should it become necessary for an employee to
leave the plant before the end of the shift for any reason,
permission must be obtained from the immediate
supervisor ...
16. Time Cards and Time Tickets
. . . Time tickets must be filled out daily by each
employee and deposited in the proper place as instruct-
ed by the direct supervisor ....
17. Overtime
In order to meet production schedules, sometimes it
will be necessary for supervisors to request employees
work overtime ...
18. Paychecks and Procedures
C. Supervisors will distribute paychecks each pay
day. ....
19. Personal Tools
Employees may be required to furnish certain tools that
are required to properly perform their jobs. In such
case, the supervisor will so inform the employee, and
the employee will be expected to obtain these tools prior
to the end of the first ninety days employment. Any
tools brought into the Plant at the time of employment,
or at any later time, must be recorded on an 'Employ-
ee's Tool Record' form. This should be done through
the employee's supervisor.
Anytime an employee desires to remove personal tools
from the Plant, a Material Authorization Pass must be
obtained from the supervisor ...
20. Work Area
Employees are to remain in their assigned work area at
all times unless given permission to leave by their
supervisor, except for drinking fountain and restroom
privileges ...
21. Reporting Errors
To make an error is no crime, but to make an error and
not report it is a very serious offense. Employees should
report any errors they make or observe to their
supervisor immediately....
22. Plant Security
Employees are not permitted to remove from the
Company premises any Company or personal property,
excepting lunch boxes, unless a Material Authorization
Pass has been obtained. Should it become necessary to
remove any property from the Company premises,
employees should contact their supervisor to obtain a
pass.
C. The Employer's Wage Scale
It is undisputed that on May 7, President Dixon and
Production Manager Webb formulated and implemented a
wage scale for all production employees. Although this
document was neither distributed nor made available to unit
employees or supervisors at that or any subsequent time
prior to the hearing, all employees received wage increases
on May 7 commensurate with their grade and tenure with
the Employer. That document, in pertinent part, reads as
follows:
rAr ICi--tntFltV 517/79
BPRrOGRESSIV INCeUSESnoc1Jx Emu
(1 ~2)
12 Weeks
iela After Last
Rate lrease
Grade IA $ 6.25 $ 6.50
Grade I 5.25 5.50
Grade 11 4.50 4.65
Grade II1 4.20 4.35
Grade IV 4.00 4.15
Grade V 3.80 4.05
Grad. VI 3.75 3.90
Grade VII 3.55 3.65
t3) t4) 0t)
12 eeks 12 W"kl
After Lt AIter Letr Merit Rianl
lcrase Iacruse laxis
$ 6.65 $ 6.80 S 7.75
5.65 5.80 6.25
4.75 4.85 5.25
4.45 4.55 4.80
4.25 4.35 4.65
4.15 4.25 4.50
4.00 4.10 4.35
3.75 3.85 4.10
The above wage scale shows the minimum hourly rates,
the progressive increases and merit range for each
grade. This wage scale will apply as follows:
I. New employees are assigned a classification, grade
and rate comparable to their qualifications on the job
for which they are hired, as nearly as can be determined
at time of hire. At any time during the first ninety days
of employment, the company may change the classifica-
tion, grade and rate to one more nearly comparable to
that of the employee's performance on the job.
1448
DIXON INDUSTRIES
3. Merit increases and/or reclassifications may be
granted any time by the company depending upon job
performance. Performance reviews shall be conducted
for each employee every twenty-six weeks after reaching
the last progressive increase (Col. 4) in their labor
grade.
4. Any employee designated as 'Leadman', in any of
the above grades, shall receive a premium of .25c per
hour over and above the wage scale. (Example: A
Leadman in Grade I who is at the 4th progression
would receive $5.80 + .25c Leadman Premium -
$6.05/Hour).
In connection with the above wage scale the Employer,
under a document entitled "Job Classifications," is able to
establish the progression and merit increases for each unit
employee. That document, in pertinent part, reads as
follows:
LEADMAN- IA, I
To assign work and to assist and train employees under
his jurisdiction. To perform work as required. Maintain
a high standard of quality, have parts and/or materials
available to be worked and maintain records and assist
in scheduling of work as required by supervisor. Keep
supervisor informed of actions and performance of all
employees and condition of equipment.
D. Obbie Estes
The undisputed facts show that Estes has been employed
since February 1978 and has been classified as Grade I
leadman in the Transaxle Department since October 16,
1978. His rate of pay prior to the election was $6.05 per
hour. Although the Employer asserted through Production
Manager Webb that some department employees would be
receiving higher wages than leadpersons, the evidence
discloses that two other transaxle employees, namely, Lois
Blakeslee and Bill Vest, both of whom were hired in 1974,
make $5.00 and S5.80, respectively, in that department.
Deborah Muller testified that she is I of 6 employees in
the transaxle department and that Obbie Estes makes
assignments of work to the department employees and
transfers them from one job to another in order to build up a
supply of parts. Muller further stated that Estes makes the
transfers on his own. Muller also testified that during her
four month tenure in that department she has requested
permission from Estes on 5 occasions to leave work for
personal reasons and that Estes has granted her that
permission immediately without checking with either Webb
or Banks. She specifically remembered one occasion in mid-
April when she became sick; another occasion in early June
when her babysitter had to leave early and a third occasion
just before the election when she had to run car keys home
to her husband. Muller also stated that if she has a
production problem, she takes it directly to Estes. Muller,
who was a recipient of the May 7 blanket raise, testified that
in early June she told Estes she needed a raise and asked who
she should talk to. Estes said she was a good worker and
would recommend to Webb that she be given a raise. Estes
' This is similar to the statement Estes told Muller when he used the word
'supervivOr."
then left and Muller observed him talking to Webb although
she did not overhear their conversation. However, Estes
later told Muller that he had talked with Webb on two
occasions about the raise. Muller further testified that Estes
has independently assigned overtime to her on at least 10
occasions and that if she has requested not to work it, Estes
has granted her permission not to work overtime. Finally,
Muller testified that on two occasions Estes told her that he
was her supervisor. The first one took place just before the
election when Estes told Muller that when the union got in,
he wouldn't have to do anything - that he could just walk
around like supervisors do and not have to do any work. The
second occasion happened shortly after the election. Muller
had missed a safety meeting and the following day she
approached Estes about adjusting the transaxles. Estes
noticed that Muller was not wearing her safety glasses and
told her that he was her supervisor and if her supervisor told
her to get on her safety glasses and she didn't "out the door
she would go."
Debora Haley testified that she has been in the Transaxle
Department since October 1978. She was brought into the
department by Banks and introduced to Estes. Since that
time, Banks has visited the department only 2 or 3 times and
Webb visits it, at most, once a week. Estes trained her on the
work she was to perform and continually instructs on how to
perform it. Estes also assigns Haley the work she is to
perform and will reassign her on the jobs she is to do -
sometimes as much as 3 to 4 times per day. Haley testified
the reasons given her for reassignment was (I) she wasn't
doing the job fast enough (2) Estes had a rush order or (3) he
wanted to build up parts. Estes also inspects Haley's work
and points out what she is doing wrong. On separate
occasions in late February and mid-May Estes told her that
she wasn't working up to her capabilities. Haley testified
that she has left work either early or for a period of time on 6
occasions. She was granted permission to do so once by
Webb, twice by Banks and 3 times by Estes. On I occasion,
Haley recalls that she asked Estes to leave to take her child
to the dentist and Estes granted it immediately. Haley has
been reprimanded by Banks on I occasion and Estes twice -
one time for staying in the paint shop too long and the
second for talking to another employee. Haley also testified
that in late April or early May she complained about the
procedure used in performing work on a certain machine.
Estes told Haley if she didn't like the way it was done, he
could put her on a job where she would have to quit. On
another occasion, Estes told Haley that if the Union got in
he would be allowed to "walk around and wear a white shirt
and wouldn't have to work.' Haley also testified that during
the first part of the year Estes assigned her overtime almost
on a daily basis for a 2 to 3 month period of time. Haley
further stated that while the "Employment Policies" lists 7
specific tools employees are required to have, Estes told her
she would only be required to have safety glasses and a
hammer. When she has had problems with her machine,
tools or production in general, or sustained an on the job
injury, she reports the problem directly to Estes. In addition,
Estes has changed the procedure in his department on filling
1449
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out production cards which is contrary to the procedure set
up by Production Manager Webb.
Ada Hyatt testified that she was employed in the
Transaxle Department for 3 months. While there, Estes
trained her for the jobs she was to perform and thereafter
inspected her work for quantity and quality and instructed
her on how to perform her work in a better manner. He also
assigned and reassigned her work. Estes also, upon Hyatt's
request, transferred her to lighter work. Hyatt further
testified that when she sustained an on the job injury she
reported it to Estes. Finally, Hyatt attested that Estes has
independently granted her permission to leave the plant and
work overtime.
Estes testified that he wears work clothes in performing
"anything that has to be done" in his department. Estes
further stated that he does substantially the same work as
other employees do for 8 hours unless he is "hunting parts."
While Estes originally denied ever recommending an
employee for a raise, he later admitted that he did talk with
Debbie Muller wherein she told him several times that she
was going to quit unless she got a raise. In attempting to
appease Muller, who he did not want to lose as an employee,
Estes said he would talk to Webb about getting her the raise.
Estes, in fact, went to Webb and told him that Muller was
going to quit unless she received a raise by a certain data and
that she was a good worker and was doing a good job.' With
respect to the safety glasses reprimand that Estes gave
Muller, his version parallels hers except that he denied he
used the word "supervisor." Estes also admitted the conver-
sations he had with Haley about taking too long in the paint
shop and talking to another employee. Estes further admit-
ted that he trains, and instructs employees, assigns and
reassigns them their work. Estes also admitted that he grants
employees permission to leave work without checking either
with Banks or Webb. Estes did not deny the conversation
with Haley wherein he told her he would put her on a
machine which would make her quit. Nor did he deny the
statements about walking around like a supervisor if the
Union got in.
Based upon Estes' admissions and the credible testimony
of Muller, Haley and Hyatt, I find that Obbie Estes is a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) for the
following reasons:'
Estes clearly uses independent judgment in training,
instructing, inspecting, assigning, reassigning and transfer-
ring employees in his department. He is given material and
employees to put together a certain quota of work product
each day by Webb and Banks and it is up to his judgment
and responsibility to see that the quota is met and met
properly; whether or not he actually works on the product.
Thus, I find he is in charge of production for the transaxle
department which, alone, qualifies him as a supervisor
' Webb could only recall that Estes came in and said that Muller was going
to quit unless she got a raise.
I was most impressed with the testimony of Haley and Muller, Both were
frank and gave responsive answers to. in most cases, non-leading questions. At
the beginning of the hearing I cautioned both parties that, since I had to make
credibility findings. they should elicit testimony from their witnesses in a non-
leading fashion. Thus, that testimony I rely upon, in most instances, from
Haley Muller and Hyatt. came from non-leading questions. However, the
Employer solicited general denials from both Estes and Webb in the form of
leading questions. Moreover. Estes, in an attempt to impress me, tried to play
down his role of responsibility by joking about his encounters with Haley and
within the meaning of Section 2(11). Little Rock Hardboard
Company, 140 NLRB 264, 265; Custom Bronze & Alumi-
num Corp., 197 NLRB 397. Moreover, his responsible
direction of employees, Illine Steel Fabricators, Inc., 197
NLRB 303; granting of employees time off, Western Saw
Manufacturers, Inc., 155 NLRB 1323, 1329, fn. II; main-
taining discipline, Lee-Rowan Manufacturing Company, 129
NLRB 980, 984 and recommending Muller for a wage
increase further convince me of his supervisory authority. In
addition, I rely upon the facts that Banks or Webb rarely
came into the transaxle department which leads me to
conclude that they were supervising, or at least overseeing
employees in those departments wherein a supervisor was
not maintained and that Estes performed many of the
functions listed for a supervisor in the Employer's "Employ-
ment Policies." Finally, as there would be only 1 1/2
supervisors,' i.e., Banks and Webb, to supervise approxi-
mately 40 employees," in a 60,000 square foot production
area there would be an unrealistic number of supervisors to
unit employees on the first shift and I so find. Ridgely
Manufacturing Co., 198 NLRB 860, 861; Maryland Cup
Corp., 182 NLRB 686, 688. Accordingly, I recommend that
the challenge to the ballot of Obbie Estes be sustained.
E. John Burris
The undisputed facts show that John Burris was hired in
February 1975; was transferred to the assembly line in early
1976 and became leadman in that department on October
16, 1978. His rate of pay at the time of the election was $6.05
per hour. It is further undisputed that while there are 5 or 6
other employees in that department, Burris has the most
seniority while the second most senior employee, Mark Rea,
who started in September 1978 is classified as a grade 6 at a
rate of $4.10 per hour.
Ada Hyatt testified that she was employed on the
assembly line for 20 months until about 2 weeks before the
hearing. During the time that Burris has been leadman on
that line he has trained Hyatt and assigned her the work she
has to do and reassigned her to other work without direction
from either Banks or Webb. Burris and Banks have both
assigned her overtime and Burris has excused her from
working overtime. On one occasion, Burris directed her to
wear her safety glasses. Burris also inspected her work and
performed the same function as other assembly employees
about 50 to 60% of the time. Hyatt further testified that
Banks only occasionally comes in the department.
Fred Wade testified that if parts break or are misassem-
bled, Burris brings the entire unit to the welding department
where he directs a welder how to fix the part.
John Burris testified that he spends 100% of his time
working on the assembly line and that the work performed
Muller. I was not impressed. With respect to Webb. he attempted to show that
he and Banks ran the entire show on the day shift and were on top of every
department and employee therein. However, his non-leading answers were
vague and based upon the record testimony as a whole and his demeanor as a
witness, I found him not to be as involved with production and the
responsibilities and abilities of his production employees as he attempted to
portray and he least impressed me of all the witnesses that testified at the
hearing. Thus. where there are conflicts in the testimony of Estes and Webb as
opplosed to Haley, Muller and Hyatt, I credit the latter.
Webb only spent 1/2 his time in the production area.
Hoggett supervises 5 welders.
1450
DIXON INDUSTRIES
there is routine in nature and that he neither directs
employees, assigns them their duties or reassigns them work.
Burris further stated he could not remember disciplining
Hyatt and did not assign her overtime. In addition he denied
having welders do repair work. However. he did admit
training new employees and receiving monthly production
schedules from Webb. Burris also admitted that if employees
have production problems, they bring them to him.
Based upon their demeanor as witnesses. I credit Hyatt
and Wade. Burris was flippant as a witness. Further, I find it
hard to believe that while Burris received production
schedules which put him in charge of assembly, the work
was done in a routine fashion without his responsible
direction or independent judgment. There are two reasons I
find this untenable. First, as shown by other record
testimony, the Employer ran more than one model and was
constantly changing, thereby necessitating a need of direc-
tion from someone on assembly - that being Burris.
Secondly, the oldest employee had only a tenure of 8 months
at the time of the election with 4 to 5 employees less than
that. Thus, it is hard to conceive that they had sufficient
experience to continually exercise independent judgment in
performing their duties to make them routine in nature on
fairly sophisticated pieces of equipment.
Based upon Burris' admissions and the credited testimony
of Hyatt and Wade, I find that Burris responsibly directed
employees in their work and used independent judgment in
scheduling work and, therefore, was in charge of the
assembly line. I further find that he independently assigned
overtime to, and disciplined, Hyatt. Thus, under the cases
cited above, I find Burris to possess sufficient authority to be
a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Accordingly, I recommend that the challenge to his ballot be
sustained.
F. Steve Reedy
It is undisputed that Steve Reedy has been employed since
September 1976 and became a class IA leadman in the
fabrication and mill department on November 20, 1978
although he has been in the department for two years. His
present rate of pay is $7.50 per hour. There are 6 additional
production employees in the department but Reedy has the
most seniority. Paul Stevens has been in the department
since February 1, 1977-which is longer than Reedy-but
he is a Social Security annuitant and only works portions of
each year. Stevens, at the time of the election, was making
$4.00 per hour. Linda Ross has been in the department since
May 22, 1978, and her rate of pay at the election was $4.25
per hour. Wanda Hobbs has been in the department since
October 31, 1978 and was making $4.35.per hour at the time
of the election. The remaining 3 employees have been in the
department less than 6 months. Reedy also repairs tools for
the tool and die department but the record does not establish
how much time he spends performing this function.'
'" The Employer attemptled to eltahlish through its Prt'rident and Wage
Scale that he maximum rate of pay fior a tool maker as $7.75 per htour anld
hcause of Reedy's work i that department. the Employer wals juiified il
paying him $7.50 per hour. H('ever. I reviewed Reedy's personnel file and no
Linda Ross testified that since Reedy has become her
department leadman, he trains employees, instructs employ-
ees, assigns work to employees and independently reassigns
work to employees, transfers them from one job to another
and grants employees permission to switch from one job to
another. Reedy also inspects the work of each employee after
it is completed. Ross further testified that Webb rarely
comes into the department and that Banks only makes an
occasional visit and never more than once a day. When
Banks visits the department he only speaks with Reedy. In
addition, Reedy goes to Webb's office to obtain the depart-
ment's work orders. When Reedy returns to the department
he places the work orders on his toolbox where he displays
independent judgment in releasing them to the department
employees. Ross testified that Reedy does very little produc-
tion work but spends most of his time either setting up
machines which takes a major part of the day: releasing
work orders or performing the duties described above. If a
machine breaks down or there is a problem with production,
it is reported to Reedy. When Reedy is absent from work,
his duties are performed either by Webb or Banks. Like
Webb and Banks, Reedy has a key to the supply cabinet.
Ross attested that both Webb and Reedy have reprimanded
her-the incident involving Reedy occurring in the early
part of the year when Reedy observed Ross and two other
employees sitting down while performing their drilling. In
addition, Ross testified that she observed on several occa-
sions what appeared to be verbal reprimands that Reedy
gave to employee Pat Simmons when she was performing
drilling work. Finally, Ross testified that since Reedy has
become leadman, he granted her permission to leave the
plant on 4 occasions when she was either sick or had a
dentist appointment.
Deborah Muller testified that when she was hired in
March, she worked about a week and a half in Reedy's
department. While there, according to Muller, Reedy used
independent judgment in assigning overtime or in excusing
employees from working overtime and in making work
assignments.
Reedy, in most instances, admitted the testimony of Ross
and Muller. In other areas, he did not deny their testimony.
There was only I area where he disagreed with Ross. Reedy
testified that while employees have requested permission to
leave the plant, he has not granted or denied it but passed
"the word" on to Banks or Webb.
In resolving the above issue, I credit Ross' version. There
was no hesitation in her response that Reedy granted time
off and did so immediately without consulting or passing
"the word" to Banks or Webb. Reedy, who impressed me as
a leader who ran a "tight ship" and exuded such significant
confidence in himself that I had no doubt he had complete
control of his department, including the granting of time off
and I so find.
mentiol olf tool anld die mlaker a.h stillted hereihl Rather. hi, file shotecd that
he was paid $7.50 per hour haed uipoi hi% clasificaillon of grade I A leadnan
in the fahricationl and mill department aid I l find
1451