Library Binding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 151 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

LIBRARY BINDING COMPANY 151
Library Binding Company and United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum &
Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
16-RC-2108. October 25,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor. Relations Act, a hearing was held before William H. Renkel,
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 [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and
Bean].
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 named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain 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 employees in the Employer's
plastic division, which was started in March 1955 and manufactures
plastic leaves and fruit. A separate corporation buys those products
and sells them. The parties agree, essentially, that a unit of plastic
department employees is appropriate, excluding homework employees,
but disagree as to the supervisory character of the chief inspector.
The Employer contends that this individual has no authority to hire,
discharge, or discipline employees, but is simply delegated to take
the work rejected by the inspectors back to the production employee
involved. Formerly, each inspector performed this function himself;
the purpose of having a chief inspector return the rejected work, it
appears, was to avoid confusion. Several employees testified that
it was their impression that a chief inspector could recommend disci-
pline to the supervisor. However, no specific instances were given
where such recommendations were effectively made. In the circum-
stances we find that chief inspectors are not supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance em-
ployees in the plastic division of the Employer's Waco, Texas, plant,
including chief inspectors, but excluding all homework employees, all
119 NLRB No. 27.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bindery department employees, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The parties disagree as to the eligibility to vote of employees in
laid-off status. The Petitioner would allow all such employees to
vote, and the Employer would allow none to vote. The employee
complement in the plastic division has fluctuated from 'a beginning of
5 employees in March 1955 to 134 in March 1957, with no seasonal
pattern apparent. The low, in 1956 was 9-in June. The low in
1957 (up to June 10) was 47-in January. Hiring is dependent upon
orders, with employees being laid off and rehired frequently. - Unless
an employee is discharged for cause, she is told that she is being laid
off rather than discharged, so that she may claim unemployment
compensation. However, her group hospitalization coverage, is dis-
continued, and upon rehire the employee is given a new clock number.
Order of rehire depends first upon skill, and then upon seniority.
Those who produce the least are laid off first and are less likely to
be recalled.
The Employer contends that any individual on laid-off status actu-
ally has been permanently terminated, that only, some employees are
suitable for rehire, and that of these, only a small percentage is avail-
able when rehiring is done. However,' the plant superintendent
testified that she never knows whether or not a laid-off employee is
permanently severed because the question is dependent upon the num-
ber of orders which may come in. The names of approximately 110
employees were read into the record together with the dates of their
original hire, lay-offs, and rehires. This group was described as
constituting approximately 75 percent of the employees in the plastic
department who had been laid off beginning in 1956 (a complete list
was not made for lack of time). On the list, apparently included in
error, .were four employees who had worked continuously since being
hired. Not counting these 4, approximately 11 of the group were
working at the time of hearing. As to 18, the last entry. on the
Employer's books before hearing was that they had quit, although the
record also shows that employees, many of whom are women with
dependents, may quit and later be rehired. As to approximately 50,
the last layoff had occurred in 1957, and of these, approximately 36
had been laid off at least once before their most recent layoff. As to
approximately 24, the record shows hire and layoff in 1956, and no
employment in 1957. With few exceptions the employment periods
ranged from a few weeks to a few months. Thus, for example, an
employee laid off on April 20, 1957, had worked for the Employer
twice during 1956, once for 1 month and then for about 4 months, and
in 1957 for about 3 months. Another employee laid off on April 20
had worked for 2 weeks in 1956 and for 2 months in 1957. Another
had worked for 21/2 months in 1956 and about 3 months in 1957. A
RIO DE ORO URANIUM MINES, INC. 153
group of 12 employees; who were among those laid off on April 20,
had been hired for the first time during 1957, and their period of
employment ranged from 1 month to about 3 months. These 12 em-
ployees averaged approximately 7 weeks of work in 1957 up to the time
of hearing. An employee laid off on May 8, 1957, had worked 3 weeks
in 1955, 3 months and 31/2 months (2 periods) in 1956, and 4 months in
1957.
Thus it appears that, because of the nature of the Employer's
operations, the bulk of the employees employed in the plastic division
since its inception, in March 1955, have worked on an intermittent
basis. We are of the opinion that some of the employees in question
have a reasonable expectation of future employment and a substantial
interest in employment conditions at the plant. We accordingly find,
on this record, that in addition to the employees actually employed
on the eligibility date, all employees on laid-off status who have been
employed by the Employer for a minimum of 280 hours-the equiv-
alent of 7 weeks-during the year preceding the issuance of this
Decision and Direction of Election are eligible to vote in the election.'
The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed be-
cause fluctuation in employment due to the newness of the plastic enter-
prise means that no useful purpose will be served by an election.
Alternatively, it requests the Board to postpone the election until it
has stabilized employment conditions. During the hearing, testimony
for the Employer was that the current business outlook for its plastic
products appears "very black." However, it is clear from the evi-
dence that the employee complement in the plastic department has,
in general, progressively increased. On this record, no reason ap-
pears to dismiss the petition or postpone the election. Accordingly,
we deny the Employer's motion.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'See Underwriters Salvage Company of New York, 99 NLRB 337; The Welch Grape
Juice Company, 96 NLRB 214, 216 ; see also San Juan Mercantile Corporation , 117 NLRB 8.
Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc. and Local No. 16, International
Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-609. October 25,
19,57
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted under -the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region on
July 9, 1957, among the employees in the' unit described in the stipu-
119 NLRB No. 25.