Leger Mill Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 382 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of LEGER MILL COMPANY, NELSON GRAIN COMPANY
BRANCH,1 EMPLOYER and LOCAL UNION No. 886, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-RC-384.-Decided July 26,1919
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF . ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Charles Y.
Latimer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing 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 em
ployees 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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all truck drivers, ware-
housemen, elevator men, and working foremen of the Employer at its
Nelson Grain Company Branch, excluding office employees, salesmen,
and supervisory employees. The Employer is in substantial accord
with respect to the general composition of the appropriate unit, but
maintains that the warehouse foreman and the elevator foreman,
both of whom the Petitioner would include, should be excluded as
supervisors.
At its Nelson Grain Company Branch, the Employer is engaged in
the sale and distribution of feed, and the sale, processing, and.distribu-
tion of seeds. The personnel consists of a manager, a bookkeeper, a
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 67.
382
LEGER MILL COMPANY 383
salesman (all of whom are excluded from the unit by agreement of the
parties), three truck drivers, a warehouseman, and the two employees
in dispute.
The elevator foreman is in charge of the grain elevator and also
occasionally works in the warehouse and loads trucks. He spends the
majority of his time working with his hands. He has no other regular
employee working under him, but during the peak season 2 usually
three additional men are put to work in the elevator. In most cases,
these employees have been temporarily transferred from other depart-
ments. The Employer's representatives testified that the elevator
foreman has authority effectively to recommend the hiring and dis-
charge of these extra hands, but admitted that he had never exercised
this authority. The elevator foreman, on the other hand, testified
that he had never been told that he had authority to hire and discharge
employees. As the elevator foreman, for more than 9 months of the
year, has no regular employees under his supervision, we find that he
is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall there-
fore include him in the unit .3
The warehouse foreman supervises all of the work done in the ware-
house. He spends the majority of his time working with his hands.
In the absence of the manager, the warehouse foreman is in charge of
the plant. He has one regular employee working under him through-
out the year. During the peak season in the fall and early spring,
additional warehousemen (usually about three) are hired to help in
the warehouse. The Employer's representatives testified that the ware-
house foreman has authority effectively to recommend the hiring and
discharge of men working under him. The warehouse foreman admit-
ted that he had been appraised of his authority. Moreover, it appears
that, on his recommendation, his brother-in-law has been hired occa-
sionally for part-time work. In view of the fact that he has at least
one employee subject to his supervision at all times, and in view of the
extent of his authority, we are of the opinion that the warehouse fore-
man is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we
shall exclude him from the unit.
We find that all truck drivers, warehousemen, and elevator men
employed by the Employer at its Nelson Grain Company Branch,
excluding office employees, salesmen, and supervisors as defined in the
Act,S constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2 The peak season for wheat in the Employer 's plant is from the middle of June to approx-
imately August 1.
6 Matter of Manganese Ore Company , 54 N. L. R. B. 1192, at page 1210.
4 Including the elevator foreman.
6 Including the warehouse foreman.
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 super-
vision 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 Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations , among the employees in the unit
.found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were em-
ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of
this Direction of Election , including employees who did not work dur-
ing, said pay -roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily 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 excluding employees on
strike who are not entitled to reinstatement , to determine whether or
not they desire to be represented , for purposes of collective bargaining,
by Local Union No. S86, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL.