Gellman Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 292 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of GELLMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
DISTRICT No. 102, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
PETITIONER
Case No. 13-RCD24.Decided November 30,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before John P. von
Rohr, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
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.
4. The parties stipulated that the appropriate unit consist of "All
production and maintenance employees of the Company in its First
Street plant and in plant number 2, excluding office and clerical and
professional employees, guards and supervisors." The Employer,
however, contends that eight individuals should be excluded from the
unit as supervisors and that five should be excluded as watchmen. The
Petitioner and the Intervenor contend that none of the eight indi-
viduals is a supervisor, and that the five watchmen have predominantly
janitorial duties and should therefore be included in the unit.
The alleged supervisors :
Cudworth, Andresson, and Wessel are classified respectively as mill-
wright, screw machine operator, and milling machine operator. Until
a substantial lay-off of employees several months ago, each of these
87 NLRB No. 41.
292
GELLMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 293
men had 3 or more employees to assist him. Since the lay-off, how-
ever, each of these men works alone, except that, on infrequent occa-
sions, Cudworth is assisted in heavy work by a helper from one of the
other departments. Calloway is classified as a painter, and has charge
of all painting and enamelling in the plant. Although, before the
lay-off, he had 12 employees to assist him, he now has only 1, and he
spends 90 percent of his time working with paint himself. The Em-
ployer's witness testified that Calloway could recommend discharge
or lay-off "in a mild form," but he was unable to testify as to whether
or not Calloway could recommend promotion. Gates, a toolmaker,
works with 4 other employees. There were, before the lay-off, as
many as 16 employees in this department. Gates has no authority
to hire, discharge, discipline, or promote, or effectively recommend
such action, or to assign work. When the foreman of this depart-
ment left recently Gates was offered the position, but he refused. The
foreman has not yet been replaced. Since there has been no foreman
in this department, Gates as the senior employee in the department,
is left in charge on the infrequent occasions when Peterson, the master
mechanic, is away from the plant.
Sanders and Lenser, classified respectively as turren lathe operator
and milling machine operator, work under the supervision of Foreman
Gannon, who is responsible for the work of 15 employees. As a re-
sult of the lay-off, the employees who work with Sanders were reduced
from 7 to 3, and those who work with Lenser were reduced from 20
to about 8. Sanders and Lenser spend most of their time in manual
work, but also have the duty of reassigning work which is assigned
initially by Gannon. Neither has authority to recommend hiring
or discharge, nor to grant time off, but each may recommend a pro-
motion or an increase in pay for his fellow workers. These recom-
mendations are made to Gannon, who in turn makes the recommenda-
tion to Peterson, who determines what action to take. Hilda Russel
is classified as an assembler, and works in the final assembly and in-
spection department. Foreman Frymark supervises this department,
which now consists of 3 women, including Russel, and 11 men, but
which, before the lay-off, consisted of 11 women and 19 men. The
men assemble the machines, and the women put on the electric plugs
and do the wiring. Russel inspects the work of the women, and also
puts on decalcomanias and performs other hand work which con-
sumes 80 to 90 percent of her time. She is paid at a higher rate than
the other women, and she can make recommendations that they be
granted time off or that additional help be obtained to do the work.
The Employer took the position that future increases in force, if
made, might restore to these alleged supervisors a large measure of
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the responsibilities they exercised before the lay-off, when their re-
spective departments were much larger. The president of the Em-
ployer testified, however, that he does not anticipate that a substantial
number of employees will be rehired in the foreseeable future. We
are convinced, from the entire record, that none of the eight individ-
uals in question now possesses supervisory authority within the mean-
ing of the Act. The three men who have no employees working
under them manifestly have no one to supervise., Nor is the painter,
with only one helper, a supervisory The four others spend practically
all their time in physical work, performing generally the same kind
of work that is performed by the employees in their respective de-
partments. Because of longer experience or superior skill, some of
the four may, on occasion, reassign work or transmit routine direc-
tions. Some of them may also make recommendations to department
heads affecting employees in their departments, which recommenda-
tions are considered by the department heads, but have no final au-
thority.3 The departments in which these people work are so small.
that it is highly improbable that intermediate supervisors are re-
quired, and the possibility of the departments being enlarged is
-remote and speculative. In general, the individuals in question have
the authority to supervise employees in their departments only to
the extent that such supervision is usually exercised by experienced
employees over those who are less skilled. Accordingly, we shall
include all eight individuals in the unit.4
The watchmen :
Five employees are classified on the pay roll as watchmen. They
work only at night and during week ends, when the plant is not in
operation. In the course of their hourly rounds they punch the watch
clocks at various stations throughout the plant. This consumes about
25 minutes of each hour. They also are responsible for the outside
property of the Employer, from which material has frequently been
carried off by persons scaling the fences or forcing the gates in the
foundry or quonset hut area. In their spare time they are expected
to occupy themselves with sweeping, checking boiler pressure, carry-
ing out cinders, answering the telephone, and similar tasks. The
record does not show how much time is thus spent.
The Employer maintains that the duties of these employees are
primarily to safeguard the Employer's plant and property. The
Petitioner contends that, as less than 50 percent of each hour is occu-
' San Antonio Machine et Supply Company, 85 NLRB 143.
2 Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 83 NLRB 187 ; General Beverages Company, 85
NLRB 696.
3 The only evidence in the record of such recommendations having been effective per-
tained to incidents occurring prior to the reduction in force.
4 Goldblatt Brothers, 86 NLRB 914 ; United States Gypsum Company, 85 NLRB 162.
GELLMAN MANUFACTURING. COMPANY 295
pied in making the rounds of the watch stations, these employees must
be classified as janitors. However, they have guard duties in addi-
tion to punching the watch clocks. Accordingly, we find that these
employees are watchmen within the meaning of the Act, and they
will therefore be excluded from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its plant at First Street and at plant number 2, both
in Rock Island, Illinois, excluding office, clerical, and professional
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which
this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also ex-
cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for pur-
poses of collective bargaining, by District No. 102, International
Association of Machinists.