Easthampton Rubber Thread Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1955

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

114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Easthampton Rubber Thread Company 1 and United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America , CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 1-I?C-4130. September P0, 1955
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 Joseph C. Barry,
hearing officer. The hearing officer'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 record shows that the Employer's direct outflow is in, excess
of $50,000 annually. As this amount meets the Board's standards for
the assertion of jurisdiction, we find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.2
2. The Petitioner desires to represent the employees involved herein
and bargain on their behalf with respect to wages, hours, and condi-
tions of employment. We therefore find it is a labor organization as
defined in the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties are in agreement as to the composition of the unit
except that the Petitioner would exclude as supervisors eight assist-
ant foremen, all of whom the Employer would include as employees.
Patrick McCarthy and Henry Desmarais spend half their time
working on the day shift in the vulcanizing department when the
foreman is present and also alternate with each other for 2-week pe-
riods in taking sole charge of and directing the department's 14 night
shift employees for whose work they are responsible. McCarthy and
Desmarais give these employees instructions, make assignments, and
have the authority to send employees home in cases involving serious
infractions of the rules.
Clement Dionne and Philip Parsons, who devote half their time to
the cutting department's day shift under the supervision of the fore-
man, alternate with each other for 1-week periods in taking sole
charge of the department's 13 night shift employees over whom they
exercise authority similar to that possessed by McCarthy and
Desmarais.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Jonesboro Gram Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481, 482, 483.
114 NLRB No. 32.
EASTHAMPTON RUBBER THREAD COMPANY 115
Michael Dzialo spends about half his time as a regular employee
on the night shift of the millroom under the direction of Harold
Kulon, an admitted supervisor. For the remainder of his time he is
in sole charge of the washing and receiving department which oper-
ates 2 or 3 nights a week. Although Dzialo spends part of his time
working along with the 6 employees in the washing and receiving de-
partment, the record also shows that in his capacity as the director
of the department's night shift, he possesses, the same authority, as
the other 4 assistant foremen on the night shift, described above.
Arthur Pelchat directs and is in sole charge of the maintenance de-
partment's 12 or 13 day shift employees in the absence of the fore-
man, who is away from the plant about 25 percent of the time. Pel-
chat makes assignments and has the power to suspend employees for
insubordination.
Earl Lizotte works on the day shift of the millroom where he di-
rects the 16 employees engaged in calendar production. In addition
to being responsible for the work of these employees, he directs the re-
maining 15 employees in the department when the foreman is ill or
on vacation.
Mitchell Kowalske works full time on the day shift of the eight-
man washing and receiving department which is under the super-
vision of a foreman. In the course of Kowalske's unloading duties, he
is assisted by one or more of the department's employees to whom he
issues routine instructions. Kowalske substitutes for the foreman
only during the latter's vacation or illness.
In view of the foregoing, we find that all of the assistant foremen
with the exception of Kowalske are supervisors who responsibly di-
rect and control, for substantial and regular periods of time, the ac-
tivities of the employees in their respective departments.3 With respect
to Kowalske, it is clear that his duties are essentially nonsupervisory.
Accordingly, we shall exclude all of the preceding assistant foremen
but Kowalske from the unit.
We find that the following employees constitute a,unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at
the Employer's Easthampton, Massachusetts, plant, including the as-
sistant foreman in the day shaft of the receiving and washing depart-
ment, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the At.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3Scharco Manufacturing Company , Inc, 312 NLRB 1 519, Enterprise Tool and Gear
Corporation, 112 NLRB 1355
387644-56-vol. 114-=9