Extral Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 878 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion seeks to represent the employees on a systemwide basis.' It is,
clear that either the systemwide unit or the existing divisional units,
may be appropriate in this case.' However, inasmuch as neither
Union wishes to represent a systemwide unit, and no party desires an
election in the respective divisional units now existing, we find that no
question concerning representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) exists.'
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. In our view of this case
it is unnecessary to pass upon the Unions' contention that their par-
ticipation in the AFL-CIO No-Raiding Agreement of June 10, 1954,
should be treated as a contract bar.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'See Philadelphia Electric Company, 110 NLRB 320 ; Florida Telephone Corporation,
92 NLRB 1696 , at footnote 4.
2 See Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 110 NLRB 1056 ; Upper Peninsula Power Company,
110 NLRB 1082
3 See Pennsylvania Electric Company, 110 NLRB 1078.
EXTRAL CORPORATION and SHOPMEN'S LOCAL UNION No. 698, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL
IRON WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-0925. March
7,1955
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 Allen Sinsheimer, Jr.,
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 Employer is a Florida corporation engaged at its plant in
Miami, Florida, in the manufacture of aluminum extrusions. Since
it began operations in February 1954, it has sold goods valued at
$135,814.47 to Superior Window Company, located in Miami. The
latter company, which had direct out-of-State shipments in excess of
$50,000 in 1953, directly utilizes the products of the Employer in the
manufacture of casement windows, projected windows, and jalousies.
Accordingly, as it appears that the Employer's sales meet the indirect
outflow standard as recently announced in the Jonesboro Grain Drying
Cooperative' case, we find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
1 110 NLRB 481.
111 NLRB No. 143.
EXTRAL CORPORATION 879
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed upon
the ground that the Employer had not refused to recognize the Peti-
tioner prior to the time the petition was filed, and that therefore, the
petition is "fraudulent and misleading." At the hearing however, the
Employer refused to recognize the Petitioner as bargaining represent-
ative of its employees. The Board recently reaffirmed its Advance
Pattern 3 decision, which held that Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act does not
require a showing that the employer refused to recognize the petitioner
before the petition was filed, where the employer declined at the hear-
ing to recognize the petitioner.'
4. The parties generally agree that a production and maintenance
unit at the Employer's Miami, Florida, plant is appropriate. How-
ever, the parties do not agree as to the inclusion of certain categories
of employees. The Petitioner requests the inclusion of press opera-
tors, inspectors, probationary employees, the die correction man, and
the shipping clerk. The Employer would exclude these employees.
We shall consider each of the classifications separately.
Press operators: The two employees in this classification operate the
machines which extrude aluminum. Depending on the operation to
be performed, between 1 and 6 men are assigned an individual press
operator. The duty of the press operator is to see that the men prop-
erly handle the metal and operate the controls of the machine. The
primary concern of these employees is the adjustment and efficient me-
Ichanical operation of the machines in their care. Such directions as
they give to the employees assigned to them would appear to be routine
in nature and would not involve the exercise of independent judgment
^or discretion. Accordingly, we find that the press operators are not
supervisors and shall include them in the unit.
Inspector: This employee performs the usual functions associated
with this classification. There is no evidence that the inspector exer-
cises any supervisory authority. Under these circumstances, as the
inspector has a community of interests with the production and main-
2 The Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the alleged ground that the Peti-
tioner improperly secured its representative showing is hereby denied . Showing of
interest is a matter for administrative determination and is not subject to collateral attack
by the parties . Moreover , we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made
an adequate showing of interest in this proceeding . See The Colorado Milling and Eleva-
tor Company, 108 NLRB 1014.
3 80 'NLRB 29.
General Shoe Corporation, 109 NLRB 618.
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenance workers, we shall in accordance with our usual policy include
him in the unit.'
Probationary employees: A 3-month probationary period is in effect
at the Employer's plant, during which time the probationary employ-
ees have the same benefits as the other hourly paid employees. It
appears that less than 50 percent of the employees are retained at the
termination of the probationary period. It is the policy of the Board
to allow probationary employees to vote, without regard to the number
of such employees who fail to continue working for the Employer.6
Accordingly, we shall include the probationary employees in the unit.
Die correction man: The primary function of the die correction man
is to determine the requirements of a particular die so that the extru-
sions will be correctly run. The individual in this classification is
a graduate engineer with many years experience in this field. He is
required to have an understanding of the pressures exerted by heat on
the metal, and the flow of semiliquid or plastic metal. In view of the
foregoing facts, we find that the die correction man is a professional
employee within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall ex-
clude him from the unit.
Shipping clerk: The shipping clerk in the supervision of the truck
loading and unloading operations has authority over four people.
While he does not have the authority to hire or discharge -employees, he
can make effective recommendations.' It further appears that the ship-
ping clerk exercises the only authority within his department and re-
sponsibly directs the activities of the other employees. We conclude
that the shipping clerk is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act."
We shall, therefore, exclude him from the unit.
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following em-
ployees of the Employer at its Miami, Florida, plant constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : s . ,
All production and maintenance employees, including the-inspector,
press operators, and probationary employees, but excluding the die cor-
rection man, the shipping clerk, the engineering draftsman, office cler-
ical employees, technical employees, professional employees, guards
and/or watchmen, floor foremen, and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Palmer Manufacturang Company, 103 NLRB 336, at 338.
8 National Torch Tap Company, 107 NLRB 1271.
7 Because the classification has recently been created , the shipping clerk has not had
occasion to make recommendations
8 General Furniture Corporation, 109 NLRB 479.
8 Apart from the five disputed categories considered above, the inclusions and exclusions
listed hereinafter are covered by a stipulation of the parties.