Lindberg Heat Treating Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 1133 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

LINDBERG HEAT TREATING CO.
Lindberg Heat Treating Co. and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case I- RC
16159
September 28, 1979
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
Pursuant to the authority granted it by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
three-member panel has considered determinative
challenges in an election held on April 5, 1979,' and
the Regional Director's report recommending disposi-
tion of same. The Board has reviewed the record in
light of the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts
the Regional Director's findings and recommenda-
tions only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Regional Director found that Edward Ahaesy
and Richard Monfils do not share a sufficient com-
munity of interest with production and maintenance
employees to warrant inclusion in the appropriate
unit and therefore recommended that the challenges
to their ballots be sustained and that the Petitioner be
certified. The Employer excepts, contending that both
employees should be included in the unit. We agree
with the Employer's contention that Ahaesy and
Monfils should not be excluded based on a lack of
community of interest.
Ahaesy's job title is "expediter." He is responsible
for insuring that jobs scheduled by the production
control supervisor are in the right department at the
proper time. Ahaesy maintains a desk in a room adja-
cent to the production floor and spends most of his
time circulating through production areas checking
the progress of various jobs, requesting foremen or
employees to expedite particular jobs, and answering
telephone inquiries from and occasionally meeting
with customers concerning work in process and deliv-
ery dates. Occasionally Ahaesy does production
work.
If Ahaesy believes a particular job should be done,
he asks a foreman to assign someone to that task.
Similarly, if production is lagging in certain areas,
such as cleaning or packing, Ahaesy recommends
that the Employer schedule overtime or he will him-
self requisition a worker from a temporary employ-
ment agency. The Employer normally follows such
recommendations unless it is aware that a regular em-
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 13 for, and I 11 against, the Petitioner;
there were 3 challenged ballots.
ployee will soon be available to complete the job dur-
ing regular hours. Temporary employees report to
Ahaesy for assignment and, when they leave the
plant, either Ahaesy or a foreman signs their time-
slips. Prior to February 1978, Ahaesy attended Em-
ployer-organized, "action-needed" meetings to dis-
cuss production problems and plant efficiency.
Ahaesy works the same schedule as day-shift pro-
duction employees, except on Saturday when he may
begin work earlier and report his own hours. Al-
though salaried, he is paid overtime for Saturdays.
Ahaesy has the same 10-minute work break as pro-
duction employees but, unlike the other employees,
Ahaesy takes his break either at his desk or in the
production foreman's office. Ahaesy receives the
same fringe benefits as production and maintenance
employees, except that as a salaried employee he is
covered immediately for sickness and accident.
whereas hourly employees have a -week waiting pe-
riod.
The Regional Director found that Ahaesy's inter-
ests are more closely allied with those of management
than with unit employees and that he does not share a
sufficient community of interest with unit employees
to warrant inclusion in the unit. We disagree.
Ahaesy's duties bring him into substantial contact
with unit employees and require him to spend most of
his time in the production area. Ahaesy also works
the same hours and receives the same fringe benefits
as production employees. We are unable to say, given
the above, that Ahaesy does not share a community
of interest with unit employees.
Although the Regional Director found it unneces-
sary to reach the issue of Ahaesy's supervisory status,
we find that the investigation does raise a substantial
question as to whether Ahaesy is a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act. We note, for
example, that there is some indication that Ahaesy
hires, assigns, and directs the work of temporary em-
ployees. There is also some indication that Ahaesy
may change employee assignments to meet produc-
tion demands or recommend that the emplover
schedule overtime. Since substantial factual issues
have been raised with respect to Ahaesy's supervisory
status which can be best resolved by a hearing, we
shall direct that a hearing be conducted to resolve
that issue.
Richard Monfils is a "lab technician" in the metal
heat-treating and processing plant. Monfils spends a
considerable amount of time on the production floor
and the remainder in an adjacent laboratory. Several
times daily he goes into the production area to cup
samples of the finished product which he then tests in
the lab. If Monfils discovers that specifications have
not been met, he reports to the metallurgist who in
turn consults with the production foremen. Occasion-
245 NLRB No. 146
1133
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ally, production employees bring samples into the lab
for Monfils' use. Monfils is also on the production
floor several times a week to compile temperature sur-
veys on furnaces and to do instrument repair work.
Although salaried, Monfils works the same sched-
ule as day-shift production employees and receives
overtime pay. Monfils receives the same fringe bene-
fits as production and maintenance employees except
that, like Ahaesy, he is immediately covered for sick-
ness and accident. Monfils' rate of pay is in the same
range as the unit employees. Monfils received on-the-
job training as a lab technician and in instrument re-
pair while employed as a maintenance helper; there is
no indication that his training required college, tech-
nical, or specialized courses.
Since Monfils spends a substantial portion of his
time in production areas in close contact with unit
employees, works the same hours, receives the same
benefits, and has a salary within the same range as
unit employees, we find that Monfils shares a suffi-
cient community of interest with production and
maintenance employees to be included in the overall
unit. We will therefore overrule the challenge to his
ballot.
Accordingly, we shall remand this case with direc-
tions to the Regional Director to open and count the
ballot of Richard Monfils and to prepare and furnish
the parties a revised tally of ballots and, if that ballot
determines the outcome of the election, issue the ap-
propriate certificate. In the event that the election is
not determined by Monfils' ballot, the Regional Di-
rector shall conduct a hearing on the supervisory is-
sue raised concerning the challenged ballot of Ed-
ward Ahaesy.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for
Region 1, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days from the
date of this Decision and Direction, shall open and
count the ballot of Richard Monfils and shall prepare
and cause to be served on the parties a revised tally of
ballots and, if that ballot determines the outcome of
the election, issue the appropriate certification.
IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that in the event the re-
vised tally of ballots does not determine the results of
the election, and the remaining ballot of Edward
Ahaesy is determinative, a hearing be held before a
hearing officer, to be designated by the Regional Di-
rector, for the purpose of taking evidence with respect
to the issue of whether Ahaesy is a supervisor. The
designated hearing officer shall prepare and cause to
be served on the parties a report containing resolu-
tions of credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and
recommendations to the Board as to the disposition
of the issue. Within 10 days from the date of issuance
of such report, either party may file with the Board in
Washington, D.C., eight copies of exceptions thereto.
Immediately upon filing such exceptions, the parties
filing same shall serve a copy with the Regional Di-
rector. If no exceptions are filed, the Board will adopt
the recommendations of the hearing officer.
IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that the case be remanded
to the Regional Director for the aforementioned pur-
poses, including the conduct of a hearing if necessary,
and the Regional Director is hereby authorized to is-
sue notice thereof.
1134