Lever Bros. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 542 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. - It will be recom-
mended that the Respondent Union notify Antista and the Company, in ' writing,' that
it has withdrawn its objections to Antista's employment by the Company. "Since
the $10 due on Antista's initiation fee was forwarded to the Union, although be-
latedly, no condition precedent of tender will need to be complied with to enable
Antista to retain his right of employment once the Union withdraws its objection to
his reemployment.'
It will further be recommended that the Union make Antista whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Union's unlawful conduct, by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as
wages from the date of his discharge to 5 days after the Union serves written notice
upon the Company and Antista 6 of its withdrawal of objections to Antista's
employment, less his net earnings, if any, during such period. Crossett Lumber
Company, 8 NLRB 440'. The amount of back pay shall be computed in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, .1 make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing the Respondent Company to discriminate
against Tony Antista contrary to the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
4., By restraining and coercing employees of the - Respondent Company in • the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Union has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and- (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent Company has not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
"Antista is included here so that there will be no danger that notice to him of the
Union's withdrawal of objections might be delayed to a time following the expiration
of 5 days from the date of service of notice on the Company. Otherwise this remedy is
based on that in Special Machine and Engineering Company, 109 NLRB 838.
Lever Bros. Company and International Chemical Workers
Union, AFL-CIO , Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-7977. August 9,
1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION ' _'
Upon a petition duly filed under-Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held `before Nathan Cohen, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error` and are hereby ^affirnldd.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged- in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em
ployees of the Employer.
116 NLRB No. 75.
LEVER BROS ., COMPANY 543
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 of all salaried laboratory employees
at the Employer's Edgewater, New Jersey, plant, excluding the chief
chemist and the control laboratory supervisor. The Employer is in
basic agreement as to the composition of the unit, but would exclude
five individuals- whom the Petitioner would include.
At its Edgewater plant the Employer manufactures margarine, edi-
ble oils, and detergents. The laboratory is one of several administra-
tive subdivisions of the plant. There are five laboratory subdivisions
physically located in different parts of the plant: (1) The edible
laboratory located on the fourth floor of the main building; (2) the
margarine laboratory also located in the main building, but on the
third floor; (3) the surf laboratory, also referred to as the detergent
laboratory, located on the third floor of a building about,600 to 800
feet from the main building; (4) the finished products inspection de-
partment, located on the third floor of the main building; and (5) the
process standard inspection department, located in the edible labo-
ratory.
A chief chemist and his assistant, the control laboratory supervisor,
are in overall control of all subdivisions of the laboratory. They are
conceded to be supervisors. Their office is located in the edible labo-
ratory. They each spend about one-half hour a day in each of the
laboratory subdivisions.
The Employer contends that the senior control chemist, the mar-
garine control chemist, the senior surf control chemist, and the senior
finished products inspector responsibly direct and make effective
recommendations with respect to their subordinates, and are therefore
supervisors. The Petitioner asserts that these individuals are not
supervisors.
The senior control chemist is required to see that all laboratory
subdivisions have the necessary supplies and proper equipment. He. is
also responsible for the day-to-day operation of the edible laboratory,
where 8 salaried chemists and 3 hourly paid employees work. He
'plans and checks the training of new employees in the edible labora-
tory, and determines when such employees are ready to assume the full
responsibilities of their duties; • he reviews the • workbooks of the
chemists; has a faulty analysis rerun, determines the reason for the
faulty 'analysis, and'if necessary retrains the employee; and he reas-
signs work within the edible laboratory to cope with the workload.
The' senior-control chemist is consulted with reference ,to the promo-
tion of the' chemists in the edible laboratory'. The consultation is in
the form of a roundtable discussion with the chief chemist and the
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
control laboratory supervisor. In this respect, considerable weight
is given to the opinion of the senior control chemist because of his close
association with the chemists.
The margarine control chemist, 3 churn analysts, and 1 hourly paid
employee are assigned to the margarine laboratory. The margarine
control chemist prepares milk cultures for use in the plant, makes
vitamin assays, and assists in the sanitation inspection of the plant.
He is also responsible for the work performed in the margarine labo-
ratory. To this extent, he conducts periodic analytical tests to deter-
mine if the churn analysts are performing their duties properly; if
he discovers discrepancies in their procedures, he takes the necessary
steps to rectify the discrepancies. He trains new employees, checking
their progress and determining when they are ready to assume the full
responsibilities of their positions. The margarine control chemist is
consulted in the same manner as the senior control chemist with refer-
ence to the promotion of churn analysts, and his recommendations are
accorded "considerable weight."
The senior surf control chemist, 3 salaried surf control chemists, 2
salaried surf packing inspectors and 1 hourly paid employee are as-
signed to the surf laboratory. The surf control chemists work in the
surf laboratory. The surf packing inspectors, who inspect detergent
products for quality and packaging, work on the door below the surf
laboratory. The senior surf control chemist performs major analyses
on raw materials and detergent products. He is also responsible for
the operation of the surf laboratory. He assigns and gives priorities
to work; he reviews the workbooks and reports of the surf control
chemists, and orders reanalyses in cases of error. He trains new em-
ployees. He is consulted in. the same manner as the senior control
chemist with reference to promotions, and his recommendations are
also given "considerable weight."
A senior finished products inspector and a finished products in-
spector are assigned to the finished prod-cts inspection department.
They perform detailed inspections of all edible oil products, making
physical tests for taste, color, and odor. Like the senior control chem-
ist, the senior finished products inspector reviews work reports and
trains new employees. He is consulted in the same manner as the
senior control chemist with reference to promotions, and his recom-
mendations are given "considerable weight."
The chief chemist and the control laboratory supervisor are the
highest paid individuals in the laboratory and are paid on a monthly
basis. The other salaried individuals in the laboratory, including the
individuals in dispute herein, are paid on a weekly basis. However,
the individuals in dispute herein receive the highest rate of pay in their
respective subdivisions.
LEVER BROS . COMPANY 545
From the foregoing, it appears that the individuals here in dispute
are the only persons who direct and advise other persons working
in their respective subdivisions during the greater part of each day.
It is also shown that they responsibly direct the work of such per-
sonnel. Accordingly, we find that the senior control chemist, the
margarine control chemist, the senior surf control chemist, and the
senior finished products inspector are supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act.'
The Employer also contends that the process standards inspector
is a supervisor and/or managerial employ_ ee. The pi,ocess standards
inspector is the only individual employed in the process standards in-
spection departmeiit. He reports directly to the chief chemist. The
process standards inspector is familiar with the overall operation of
the plant and the manufacturing standards established' by the re-
search division. He reviews the manufacturing operation records,
and if he detects any deviation from the established standards, he
advises how the established Ilianufacturing standard may be regained.
About 50 percent of his time is spent in the plant, away from his desk
in the edible laboratory. The records show that he has daily contact
with the laboratory personnel. Occasionally he works overtime per-
forming milk cultures, a laboratory function. 'The process standards
inspector does not direct the work of or otherwise supervise any
other employees and he does not have authority to spend the Company's
funds or'pledge its credit.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the process standards inspector
is neither a supervisor nor a managerial employee' We shall, there-
fore, include him in the unit.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective baigaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of, the Act : All salaried laboratory employees at the Em-
ployer's Edgewater, New Jersey, plant, including the process stand-
ards inspector, but excluding the senior control chemist, the margarine
control chemist, the senior surf control chemist, the finished products
inspector, the chief chemist, the control laboratory supervisor, office
clerical employees, guards, and other supervisors' as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted'from-publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part In the con-
sideration,of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
' See Price;Pfister Brass Mfg. Co ., 115 NLRB 918 ; ,!. T. Flag Rn{tt{ng Company, 115
NLRB 211 ; P{tteburgh'Plate Glass Co;, 115 NLRB, 976.
2 See Titefie.v, Inc , 103 NLRB ' 223, 224-225 ;,land WCAU, !re , 93 NLRB 1003, 1005
405448-57-vol. 1'16-36