General Cable Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 274 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. OF L.,
PETITIONER
Case No. -R-71D5.-Decided April 9, 1947
Mr. G. J. Glehan, of New York City , for the Employer.
Mr. William Beedie, of Matawan, N. J., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jerome A . Reiner, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
on November 14, 1946 , conducted a prehearing election among em-
ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, * to deter-
mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Peti-
tioner for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election the parties were furnished a Tally
of Ballots . The Tally shows that of the approximately 13 eligible
voters, 13 cast valid ballots, of which 12 were for and 1 against the
Petitioner . There were no challenged ballots.
Thereafter , a hearing was held at New York City , on December
5, 1946, before Jerome I. Macht, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the Employer moved to
dismiss the Petition. The hearing officer referred the matter to
the Board . For reasons appearing hereinafter , the motion to dis-
miss is denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
General Cable Corporation is a New Jersey corporation with a
plant located at Bayonne, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of electrical wire and cable.
During the past year it purchased raw materials valued in excess of
$100,000, for use in its Bayonne, New Jersey, plant,. of which 90 per-
cent was obtained from points outside the State of New Jersey.
73 N. L. R . B, No. 53.
274
GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION 275
During the same period it sold finished products from this plant
in excess of $100,000, 90 percent of which was shipped to points
outside the State of New Jersey.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of foremen employed in the production,
maintenance, and shipping departments of the Employer's Bayonne,
New Jersey, plant.
The Bayonne plant has a plant manager, a general superintendent,
5 division superintendents, and 13 foremen, employed in its produc-
tion, maintenance, and shipping departments. In this proceeding we
are concerned only with the 13 foremen. The Employer has 440 em-
ployees at this plant, of which approximately 350 are production, main-
tenance, and shipping employees represented by Local B-868, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L. This labor
organization has a current contract with the Employer from which
foremen are expressly excluded.
The foremen in this plant have substantially the same duties and
responsibilities. They are paid on a salary basis and have similar
hours of work and identical working conditions; they attend meetings
of foremen called by management. They are responsible to the di-
visional superintendents to whom they make reports concerning the
operations of the departments over which the foremen have charge.
The foremen have authority to discharge and effect changes in the
status of employees under their supervision. Like the foremen who
are similarly employed at the Employer's plants at Rome, New York,
and Perth Amboy, New Jersey, the Bayonne foremen enforce, but
apparently do not formulate, company policy.'
I See Matter of General Cable Corporation, 68 N. L R. B 660, 662-663; 67 N L. R. B.
538, 540.
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the foremen
are employees within the meaning of the Act and that they may con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining purposes.2 For
the reasons set forth in numerous cases,' we find no merit in the Em-
ployer's contention that the foremen may not be represented by the
Petitioner because of its affiliation with the labor organization repre-
senting the rank-and-file employees.
We find that all foremen employed in the production, maintenance,
and shipping departments of the Employer's Bayonne plant, ex-
eluding all other employees, constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election show that the Petitioner has been selected
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit. We shall, therefore, certify it as such.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority
of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in
Section IV, above, as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment. -
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting:
The Petitioner which seeks certification for a unit of supervisory
employees is affiliated with the certified bargaining representative of
the rank-and-file employees whose activities the supervisors direct.
Consequently, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Mat-
ter of Jones cC Laughlin Steel Corporation,' I believe the certification
of the Petitioner is not compatible with effectuating the purposes
of the Act, nor is it in harmony with pertinent Common Law and
the public interest. I would therefore dismiss the petition.
2 Packard Motor Car Company v. N L. R B , 67 S Ct 789 , decided March 10, 1947;
Matter of General Cable Corporation , supra.
See, e g, Matter of General Cable Corporation, supra , Matter of Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corporation, Vesta -Shannopin Coal Daession, 66 N L R . B 386 . 397-403
4 71 N L R B 1261.