Greeneville Milling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 613 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of H. C . REAVES, L. H. LANE, FLOSSIE REAVES, KITTY
LAMONS , MRS. J . M. REAvEs, MATTIE DAMS, MRS . R. G. REAVES,
HUGH G. REAVES, MABLE GLOVER, PEARL KIRK and KITTY LAMONS
AS TRUSTEE FOR MARY SENTELLE, D/B/A GREENEVILLE MILLING
COMPANY and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF
AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 10-R-1771.-Decided June 13, 1946
Suringle & Hardin, by Mr. James A . Hardin, of Greeneville , Tenn.,
for the Company.
Miss Esther L Demeno, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. Lewis H. Ulman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISON
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers
of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of H. C. Reaves, L. H. Lane, Flossie Reaves, Kitty Lamons,
Mrs. J. M. Reaves, Mattie Davis, Mrs. R. G. Reaves, Hugh G. Reaves,
Mable Glover, Pearl Kirk and Kitty Lamons, as Trustee for Mary Sen-
telle, d/b/a Greeneville Milling Company, Greeneville, Tennessee, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board on April 11,
1946, conducted a prehearing election pursuant to Article III, Section 3,
of the Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,' among
the employees of the Company in the alleged appropriate unit, to deter-
mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Union for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the par-
ties. The Tally showed that there were approximately 7 eligible voters,
I By amendment of November 27, 1945, this Section of the Rules now permits the conduct
of a secret ballot of employees prior to hearing in cases which present no substantial issue.
68 N. L. R B, No 87.
613
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that 5 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 4 were for the
Union and 1 against it. There were no challenged ballots.
Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10,2 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, the Board provided for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice before Louis S. Balkin, Trial Ex-
aminer. The hearing was held at Greeneville, Tennessee, on May 3, 1946.
The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exam-
iner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Greeneville Milling Company is a partnership with its plant at Greene-
ville, Tennessee, where it is engaged in milling grain and selling flour,
meal and mill feed. The value of its finished products in the past calendar
year amounted to approximately $100,000, 75 percent of which was
shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees as it urges
that the unit sought by the Union is inappropriate.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 As amended November 27, 1945, this Section provides that where the initial hearing is
held after the election all issues , including issues with respect to the conduct of the election
or conduct affecting the election results and issues raised by challenged ballots , shall be heard
at such bearing.
GREENEVILLE MILLING COMPANY
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
615
The Company and the Union agree that the Company's production and
maintenance employees, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees,
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The Company, however, would
exclude its millers, Candy Johnson and George Brown, as supervisory
employees, while the Union would include them within the bargaining
unit.
In support of its position the` Company introduced into evidence at
the hearing an accident report dated July, 1942 which contained John-
son's name in the space designated "foreman," but which was not signed
by him. It also maintained that Brown was in charge of the plant dur-
ing the day and Johnson at night, and that they had authority to hire
and discharge or effectively recommend such action. Furthermore, the
Company adduced evidence purporting to show that on one occasion
Johnson had been told to hire someone to help him on the night shift,
and on another occasion had given an employee permission to take time
off ; no evidence of this nature wa- adduced concerning Brown.
At the prehearing election, however, Brown and Johnson voted with-
out challenge. Moreover, the record discloses that, aside from Brown
and Johnson, the Company has only about five employees who are not
a part of its managerial force.3 Brown and Johnson are the Company's
millers and are assisted by the other employees. Significantly, Johnson
testified at the hearing that the accident report, introduced into evidence
by the Company, had been prepared without his knowledge and that he
tad never been notified, in almost 20 years with the Company, that he
was considered a foreman. While he stated that he received 5 cents an
hour more than Brown and the other employees, he attributed this to
his long term of service with the Company; all of his other privileges
are identical with and not greater than those of the other employees.
In addition, Johnson testified that he had on occasion complained of the
"shiftlessness" of some employees but no action was taken on his com-
plaints. He testified further that he had been told to obtain someone to
help him on two occasions only so that he would not have to shut down
at night. On one of these occasions he was completely unsuccessful, and
on the other he had his son help him for a short period. Johnson also
testified that, except for these two instances, he had not been told that
he had authority to hire and discharge or effectively recommend such
action, and denied that he had ever authorized anyone to take time off.
Finally, Johnson testified that Brown' s status is the same as his. From
the entire record we are persuaded that Brown and Johnson are not
J Partner Flossie Reaves is the Company's bookkeeper and office manager , Partner H C
Reaves, who has often been absent because of illness , is general manager , and Partner L H,
Lane is plant manager.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vested with sufficient indicia of supervisory authority to warrant the
conclusion that they fall within our usual definition of supervisory
employees.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany,4 excluding clerical employees and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that the
Union secured a majority of the votes cast, and as no votes were chal-
lenged we shall certify the Union as the collective bargaining represen-
tative of the employees in the appropriate unit.5
PARTICIPATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to fhe power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers
of America, C. I. 0., has been designated and selected by a majority
of all production and maintenance employees of H. C. Reaves, L. H.
Lane, Flossie Reaves, Kitty Lamons, Mrs. J. M. Reaves, Mattie Davis,
Mrs. R. G. Reaves, Hugh G. Reaves, Mable Glover, Pearl Kirk, and
Kitty Lamons as Trustee for Mary Sentelle, d/b/a Greeneville Milling
Company, Greeneville, Tennessee, excluding clerical employees, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, as their representative fpr the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages , hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
4 Including Candy Johnson and George Brown.
s As above indicated , Brown and Johnson voted in the election without challenge. It would
appear that the Company is solely interested in a determination by the Board of the precise
limits of the appropriate unit, and that we have not been called upon to dispose of an objection
to the election on the ground that these employees both cast ballots , possibly in favor of the
Union . For even had we found that Brown and Johnson were supervisory employees and
assumed that they improperly voted for the Union , in this posture of the case the Union
would nevertheless have received a majority vote of two out of three valid ballots cast.