Electric Household Utilities Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 125 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

,In the Matter of HURLEY MACHINE DIVISION OF ELECTRIC HOUSEHOLD
UTILITIES CORPORATION a'nd U NITED ELECTRICAL,, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS OF' AMERICA
Case No. R-4935
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
DIRECTION
June 5, 1943
On March 19, 1943, the National Labor Relations Board, .herein
called the Board, issued its Decision and Direction of Elections in the
above-entitled proceeding., Pursuant to the Direction of Elections,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 16, 1943, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region (Chicago, Illinois). On May 4 and 19, 1943, respec-
tively, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Section
10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
2; as amended, issued his Election Report, and his Report on Objec-
tions to Election Report, copies of which Were duly served upon the
parties.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported
in part as follows :
Total number of ballots cast-------------------------------- 981
Total ballots challenged ------------------------------------ 69
Total void ballots- ------------------------------------------ 0
Total valid votes counted----------------------------------- 912
Votes cast for United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of
America, C. I. 0------------------------------------------ 452
Votes cast for Thor Workers' Independent Union------------- 444
Votes cast for neither--------------------------------------- 16
On May 8 and 13, 1943, respectively, the U. E. filed Exceptions to
the Election Report and Supplemental Data to Exceptions to the
Election Report, which have been considered by the Board. These
relate solely to the Regional Director's recommendations with "respect
to the challenged ballots. No exceptions to the Election Report
were filed by the Company or the Independent.
148 N. L. It. B. 295.
50 N. L. R. B., No. 28.
125
d
126 DEGISIONS', OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of the fact that the counting of the challenged ballots was
essential to determine the result of the election , the Regional Di-
rector investigated the validity of the 69 challenged ballots and re-
ported his findings and recommendations . with respect to each of
them. '
Employees discharged on March 31 , 19143: On this date 347 em-
ployees were discharged by the Company ; 24 of these employees ap-
peared at the polls and cast special ballots , all' of which were chal-
lenged on the ground that the people involved were permanently
discharged.
Letters were sent to , each of the discharged , employees and'read, in
part, as follows :
Notice of Discharge
It is with regret that you are notified that your services will no
longer be required by the Company ; The cause is one over which
we have no control and is brought about by a drastic reduction
i''ii our production schedule by the War Department.
Indicate below ' address ' to which final check should ' be' mailed.
The Company 's statement that it was compelled to make these ci'is-
chnrges ,was corroborated .by a letter from the War Department which
.confirmed the fact that the Company's production .quota for' brass
boosters had been reduced*by more than 50 percent.
The U. ' E. claiins̀ 'that this curtailment in staff ' is really a lay-off,
as had been the practice in several other severances of niploymen't
within the past 2 years .
In support of its contentioii that the reduction in'`staff ' was really
a lay-off and not a discharge , the; U. E. submitted evidence that on
May,'6, 7, and ' 10, 1943, the Company addressed the following letter
to all employees who were discharged on March 31
HURLEY MACHINE DIVISION
of
Electrical Household Utilities Corporation,
General Offices,
5400 Cermak, Road,
Chicago.
We have an opening for which we feel you will qualify . Please
report to the employment ,office just as soon , as possible.
Kindly fill in, and sign the enclosed card at office. jhank you.
Yours very truly, ,
Employment Dep'artm'ent.
HURLEY MACHINE DIVISION 127
With each letter sent out there was enclosed a post card, which
read:
Please indicate, by checking one box, your present employment
status., '
q Am not employed at a War Plant and do intend to report to
work.
q Am now employed full time at a War Plant and do not in-
intend to return to work at Hurley Machine Company.
q Am not employed and will return for employment.
Signed------------------------ -
The Company states that 100 employees were needed to fill vacancies
that arose subsequent to March 31. 'Approximately 80 of the 347 peo-
ple have applied for reemployment and, with the exception of 3 or 4
who 'refused to reenter the Company's employ because they were not
reinstated to their former jobs, all who applied have been rehired.
The Company, states that these rehired employees were taken back as
new employees without any seniority;, that they were required to sign
new` application cards, which were 'marked "Rehired"; and that they
were not necessarily rehired at^their former salaries.' The Company
further states that the rehired employees have been' assigned to jobs
in a department different from the one they formerly worked in and
that wages are not based upon former salaries but upon the rate paid
for each particular job. At the time of the mass discharge the group
hospital, life, and accident insurance of each employee so discharged
was canceled and those rehired are not entitled to insurance benefits
until they have been in the Company's employ for 90 days. Of the
24 employees whose ballots were challenged, 6 have returned to work
for the Company, 3 have stated that they do not intend to return, and
the remainder have not responded to the letters and post cards.
In support of its reason for sending letters only to the 347 employ-
ees involved in the March 31, 1943, discharge, the Company suites that
this group, being the most recently discharged employees, was best ac-
quainted with the work of the Company. The Company further states
that, while it only needed about 100 employees, it addressed letters to
all 347 because it knew that a ,great many of the discharged employees
had obtained employment elsewhere. In connection with the Re-
gional Director's investigation of the Exceptions to the Election Re-
port, inquiry was made of the personnel departments of'2 nearby plants
which had hired several of the discharged employees. 'In each case
the Company had advised these other concerns that the employees had
been definitely discharged on March 31,1943, and would not be recalled.
Under all the circumstances we are convinced that'this was a perma-
nent discharge. ' 'We agree with the recommendation of the Regional
,r
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOIARD
Director to sustain the challenges and declare invalid,,the ballots of the
24 former employees.
Edward Janis, Joseph Benes, Jennie Kowalski, Arthur Kemm and
Jane Svoboda were challenged by the Board's agent on the ground that
their names or clock numbers did not appear on the payroll `submitted
by the Company. All parties agree that the omission was caused by
an error. We shall, accordingly, overrule the challenges and order
their ballots counted.
Dorothy Cerny, H. C. Hanke, Felix Dzieniszewski, were challenged
by the Board's agent on the ground' that their names did not appear on
the pay roll. The parties agree that the first two are clerks and the
third is a parts counter, categories, which were excluded from the unit.
We shall, therefore, sustain the challenges and declare their ballots
invalid.
Outside Service Department:• The ballots of 15 employees of the
Outside Service Department were challenged because their names did
not. appear on the pay roll subinitted,by the Company for use at the
election. The Company states that the names of these employees were
inadvertently omitted because they'are under the supervision of a su,
pervisor whose office is located'in the general offices of the Company,
and further that these men are monthly salaried employees carried
on the office pay roll as, distinguished from the production and main-
tenance employees who are paid on an hourly basis and carried on the
factory pay roll. In addition to their monthly salaries all-these em-
ployees receive commissions. They are bonded, report to the same
supervisor and spend the major part of their time outside the plant.
The employees of the Outside Service Department deliver, sell, and
repair electrical, household appliances in contra-distinction to the
production and maintenance employees who are engaged in the plant
proper in war production.' In addition there are two employees who
collect money from metered, washing machines which the Company
has installed in numerous department houses throughout the city.
There is no interchange between the employees in the Outside Service
Department and the production and maintenance employees. The
employees of the Outside Service Department did not appear on the
pay roll submitted by the Company' for use at-the hearing held herein
nor does the record show that they were intended to be included in the
unit. We -shall, therefore, follow the Regional, Director's recommen-
dation that the challenges be sustained and, accordingly, we shall
declare invalid the ballots of Larson, Thompson, Lasar, Gallagher;
Remijan, Lorenz,.Litz, Lowe, Wilson, Kestle, Dougherty, Fry, Kar-
lovsky, Whitney, and Peterson. ' '
Print Shop: The ballots of the three employees in the print shop
were challenged by the Board's agent ,because their names did not
HURLEY MACHINE D'IVISI16N 129
appear on the pay roll. These employees are under the supervision
of the same individual who is the supervisor of the Mailing Depart-
ment. The Company's reason for failing to include the names of 'these
employees on the pay roll is substantially the same as that- given for
the Outside' Service Department, i. 'e.; these employees were under
the supervision of a general office supervisor and were carried on
the office pay roll because they are paid on a monthly basis. The
names of the print shop employees were not listed on the pay roll
submitted by the Company for use at the hearing nor was there any
mention in the record of them.'' We agree with the recommendation
of the Regional Director and declare invalid the ballots of Vonasek,
Weinberger, and Ramocki.
Cafeteria c0 Canteen employees: • The ballots of seven cafeteria and,
canteen employees were challenged by the Board's agent because their
names did not appear on the pay roll. The Company states that the
names of these employees were inadvertently omitted because they
are paid on a monthly basis and carried on the office pay roll. While
neither the pay roll furnished to the Company for 'the hearing nor
that furnished for the election listed these employees, this category
of employees was discussed at the hearing. After a full ' discussion
of these cafeteria and canteen employees the parties agreed that they
were to be included within the appropriate unit. The U. E. states
that it agreed to their inclusion at the hearing because the Inde-
pendent stated that these employees were covered by the contract
which the Independent had with the Company. The U. E. now
contends that these employees are not covered by said contract. The
investigation by the Regional Director revealed that the. Independent
has bargained for these employees, and has handled grievances for
them. We agree with the recommendation 'of the Regional Director
and shall, therefore, overrule the challenges and order to be counted
the ballots of Pine, Linsey, Fliger, Boucher, Pbrusa, Baer, "rind
Rutyna.
James Uhler was challenged by the Board's agent because-his name
did not appear on the pay roll. The Company states that his name
was omitted deliberately because it considers him to.-be a supervisory
employee with power'to recommend. discharge. The U. E. contends
that the challenge should be sustained because Uhler is a supervisor
whereas the Independent contends that he is a working set-up man
with no supervisory authority. Prior to March 31, 1943, the date of
the reduction in staff, Uhler was a. set-up man in charge of 50'machines
in' the Booster Production Department. In addition to 50 opera-
tors there were 7 other set-up men in this department, each of whom
had a certain number of machines under his immediate supervision
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but reported to Uhler when anything went wrong . While Uhler
himself had 8 machines under his immediate supervision he spent a
major part of his time inspecting and checking the work of the 7
other set-up men. Uhler received ,a higher hourly rate than the 7
other men . Due to the curtailment of its contract for production
of boosters , the Company has almost ceased booster production, with
the result that this department has been virtually shut down: On
April 22, 1943, Uhler was transferred to another department where he
is a set-up man in charge of 10 drill presses. This transfer had no
effect upon his hourly wage. Under all the circumstances we disagree
with the Independent 's contention that Uhler is merely a working
set-up man . We agree with the Regional Director 's recommendation
and shall declare his ballot invalid.
Frank Novak was challenged by the Board's agent because his name
did not appear on the pay roll. The Company states that it omitted
Novak's name from the pay roll because it considers him a supervisor
with the right to recommend discharge. The U. E. contends that this
challenge should be sustained while the Independent contends that
Novak is merely a set -up man with no supervisory authority and
should be allowed to vote.
Prior to March 31, 1943, Novak worked in the Booster Production
Department where he was in charge of 59 machines . He had 4 set-up
men under him who supervised the operation of the various machines.
He has transferred employees from one machine to another and has
recommended promotion . Since his department is practically shut
down he, is the only remaining employee therein , and is presently
converting machinery to another use. His hourly, rate has not beet,
changed. , We agree with the Regional Director 's recommendation
that,the challenge be sustained and, accordingly, we shall declare
N
-
ovak's
_
ballot invalid.
John Cook was challenged by the Independent on the ground that
he is a supervisor . Cook is a receiving clerk in the stockroom. He
receives all supplies , signs bill of lading , checks goods into the'ware-
house, and has three men under his supervision to whom he gives
orders to load and unload trucks and carloads of supplies . He states
that he divides his time about equally, doing manual work and clerical
work. Within the past year , he has recommended the discharge of
one, employee and the recommendation was followed . He has also
recommended a promotion but this recommendation was not followed.
The Company, contends that this employee is a clerk who spends over
80 percent of his time performing clerical work and that 'the chal-
lenge should be sustained on that ground. The U. E. agrees with
this contention . We agree with the Regional Director 's recommenda-
tion that the challenge be sustained, and shall declare Cook's ballot
invalid.
/l
HURLEY MACHINE D'IVI'SION 131
Irvin R. Collins was challenged by the U. E. on the ground that-
he is a supervisor. The Company states that Cullins is an "A" grade
maintenance man in one department of the plant. His authority
over the other "B" and "C" maintenance men is limited to assigning,
work to the man best fitted for each particular job. He is paid on
an hourly basis and does manual work all, of the time. He has no
powers of recommendation. Since all the parties are now in agree-
ment' that this,challenge should be overruled, we find that Cullins
was entitled to vote. We shall, therefore, order his ballot counted.
Otto Hanzl is a floor inspector who supervises the work of about
25 female inspectors. He assigns work to these inspectors and states
that they bring their personal work problems to him. He can and
has transferred employees from one operation to another within his
department ; he has recommended promotions and.states that he has
authority to recommend demotion or discharge. Seven of the in-
spectors in this department stated that they, believed Henzl to be
their immediate supervisor. The Company states that it considers
Henzl as a supervisor with the power to recommend discharge or
promotion. We agree with the Regional Director's recommendation
that the challenge be sustained; accordingly, we shall declare Henzl's
ballot invali l.,
The following employees' ballots were challenged by the U. E. on
the ground that they are supervisors or perform supervisory, func-
tions. The Regional Director recommends sustaining the challenge
in eaich case while the Company and the Independent urge that the
challenge's be overruled. , ' '
Thomas Francis. Prior to March 31, 1943, Francis was. a set-up
man in charge of 15 machines to each of which there was assigned
1 operator. He performed no production work himself, merely
checking on the machines and their operations throughout the day.
For the most part, the operators under Francis were new employees
and he instructed them in the operation of the machines. Since the
curtailment of 'production, Francis has been employed, as a set-up
man in another department where he only has 4 machines under his
supervision. However, he states that he spends all his time setting
up' and checking the operation of these machines and performs no
production work himself. The Company contends that Francis is an
"A" grade ' set-up man without authority to recommend discharge
or promotion; there is no evidence that he has ever made recom-
mendations. Under all the circumstances, we find that lie was entitled
to vote and shall, therefore, order his ballot counted.
Harold Vorreyer. Prior to March 31, 1943, Vorreyer was a set-up
man in charge of 14 machines on the night shift to each of which
there was assigned -2 employees as operators. Vorreyer had 1 set-up
1
132 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RE'LATION'S BOARD
V
man assisting him to set up some of, the machines., Vorreyer, himself,
performed no production work. He has never made any recommenda-
tions with respect to hiring, discharge, or, promotion, and has never
transferred employees from one machine to .another. Since the cur-
tailment of production, Vorreyer has been working on the day shift
operating a machine. In view of all the circumstances and his present
occupation, we find that Vorreyer was entitled to vote and shall, there-
fore„order his ballot counted.. -
Clem Hutchinson is a set-up man in charge of the machines oper-
ated by 40 people. He performs no production work but spends all
his time setting up and checking the machines for which he is respon-.
sible. In the absence of any evidence that ,lie, has exercised any su-
pervisory authority over the employees for whom he sets up machines,
we find that he was entitled to vote and shall, therefore, order his ballot
counted.
4nton Peters is a floor inspector in charge of approximately 60 fe-,
male inspectors and 3 male inspectors; the male inspectors also super-
vise the, work of the, female inspectors. Peters has been employed by
the Company for approximately 13 years, receives a -higher hourly
rate than other inspectors, and has recommended promotions and
transfers to other departments. We agree with the Regional Direc-
tor's recommendation that the challenge be sustained and shall declare
his ballot invalid.
Paul Dryach is a set-up than in charge' of 10 milling machines. He
spends all his time setting. up, and checking- the operations of, these
machines. He cannot' 'transfer employees from one department to,
another, but has transferred operators of the, milling machines from
one machine to ai othe- r• where a particular employee is unable to per-
forma difficult operation; Five employees in this department stated
tl fat they considered Dryach to be- Itheir supervisor. While he has
never recommended hiring or discharge, -he, has recommended promo-11
tions.' We agree-with the ' Regionals Director's recommendation that
the challenge,be sustained. Accordingly, we, shall, declare, Dryach's
ballot `in'valid.
Joseph Rep'osks a set-up ,man_who sets up all be work:and 4
drill presses, He * has 34 machines under his supervision , as well as
employees for wliom, he lays out and arranges work; and to whom he,
assigns work. He does no production work at all , and while -he
lias'neve'r recommended hiring or discharge , he has recommended pro-
motion. He stated that when employees in 'his department , did not
prove efficient, he recommended their transfer to another , department.
He,has an assistant who aids him in setting uip the work in his depart-
inert and wlio reports to him. Sev,eral employees, in, his department
stated'tliat they considered .Reposk to be their supervisor . We agree
HURLEY MACHI\RE D'IVISION 133
with the, Regional Director's recommendation. that the challenge be
sustained and, accordingly, shall declare his ballot invalid.
TT%alter Schmidt is a set-up man in charge of 16 drill presses and
performs no production work. He has been employed with the Com-
pany for approximately 20 years, and states that he has never recom,
mended discharge or promotion. However, when 1 of the operators
proved inefficient, he recommended his transfer to another department.
Several employees of this department stated that Schmidt was their
supervisor. We agree with the Regional Director's recommendation
that the challenge be sustained and, accordingly, we shall declare
Schmidt's ballot invalid.
For the reasons indicated above, we conclude and find that the 24
employees who were discharged on March 31, 1943, were ineligible to
vote in the election and their ballots are hereby declared invalid. We
further find that the following employees are ineligible to vote in the
election and hereby declare their ballots invalid :
Cerny Kestle Ramocki
Cook Larson Remijan
Dougherty Lasar Reposk
Dryach ' Litz Schmidt '
Dzieniszewski Lorenz Thompson ,
Fry Lowe Uhler
Gallagher Novak Vonasek
Hanke Peters Weinberger
Henzl Peterson Whitney
Karlovsky Wilson
We' find that the following employees were eligible to vote in the
election and their ballots are hereby declared valid :
Baer Hutchinson Pbrusa-
Benes Janis Pine
Boucher Kemm Rutyna
Cullins Kowalski Svoboda
Fliger Linsey Vorreyer
Francis
Since the results of the election may depend upon the counting of
the 15 challenged ballots declared valid, we shall direct that they be
opened and counted.
DIRECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of National Labor
536105-44-vol 50-10
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it
is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representation for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Hurley Machine Division of Electric Household Utilities Cor-
poration, Cicero, Illinois, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region 'shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of , the' Board, set
forth above, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and
Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date of this -Direction,
open and count the ballots of :
Baer Francis Pbrusa
Benes Hutchinson Pine
Boucher Janis Rutyna
Cullins Kemm Svoboda
Fliger Kowalski Vorreyer
Linsey
and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties in this
proceeding a Supplementary Election Report, embodying therein his
findings and his recommendations as to the results of the balloting.
[See infra, 50 N. L. R. B. 687 for Second Supplemental, Decision
and Certification of Representatives.]