Metal Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 94 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to Ezell Necaise who was offered employment on October 22, but to a job not
equivalent to the one he held when he went on strike and paying 10 cents an hour less, it will
be recommended that Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would
normally have earned as wages from August 5, 1952, to the date of offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings during that period.
All computation of back pay shall be made in accordance with the rules and methods laid
down by the Board in Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, and F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289.
Because of Respondent 's unlawful conduct as heretofore found, and its underlying purpose,
I am convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that the danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the course of Respondent 's conduct in the past. The preven-
tive purpose of the Act will be forwarded unless the recommendations are coextensive with
the threat. In order, therefore , to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7,
to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices , and to minimize strife which burdens and
obstructs commerce, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act , it will be recommended
that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Hillman Ladner, Lovander Ladner, and Tillman Ladner, on July 31.
1952, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. The strike of, July 31, 1952, was caused and prolonged by Respondent 's unfair labor
practices.
3. By refusing , on August 5, 1952, to reinstate Roy Anderson, W. L. Anderson, Edward
Collins, Leroy Cuevas, Clinton Dedeaux , Ruben Descheamp , JohnW. Estapa, Paul Giadrosich,
T. V. Hickman, Earnest Ladner, Everett Ladner, Ezell Necaise , Joseph Necaise, Laurence
Necaise, and Clifton Saucier, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not interrogated or threatened its employees in violation of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION and UNITED STEEL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-
RC-2412. November 18, 1953
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 Karl W.
Filter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the
ground that the Employer did not receive affirmative evidence
of the Petitoner's compliance with Section 9 of the Act is
107 NLRB No. 33.
METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 95
denied. We are administratively advised that the Petitioner is
in compliance with the Act.'
The Intervenor ' s motion to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the Petitoner is "fronting" for a noncomplying local
representing the employees sought is denied . So far as the
record discloses , no local of the Petitioner represents these
employees. 2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the
Petitioner, and International Association of Machinists, Lodge
No. 613, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organi-
zations claiming to represent certain employees of the Em-
ployer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation 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 to represent production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's metal products manu-
facturing plants, located at Hialeah and Miami, Florida,
respectively. The Intervenor agrees that the proposed two-
plant unit is appropriate. The Employer urges that production
and maintenance employees at each plant constitute a separate
unit; and that the two-plant unit is not appropriate.
The Employer, a Florida corporation, has its central offices
and main plant at Miami, Florida. The 2 Florida p 1 a n t s,
which are 8 to 10 miles apart, are operated under the control
of a factory manager at the Miami plant. A subordiante super-
visor is in direct charge of employees at each plant. The
central office at the Miami plant serves both plants with
respect to hiring and other personnel matters. An overall
seniority list covers employees at both plants. The Miami
plant manufactures certain parts for one of the finished
products produced at the Hialeah plant. The Intervenor, which
has represented employees at the Miami plant since 1946,
presently represents the Employer's production and main-
tenance employees at both plants under a 1951 contract, which
expired on September 2, 1953.3 Under these circumstances,
we find that the existing 2 - plant unit is appropriate for
bargaining purposes.4
The Employer would exclude, as managerial employees,
inspectors; timekeepers; vehicle drivers; and tool -crib attend -
ants, all of whom are presently included in the contract unit
'American Service Bureau, 105 NLRB 485
2 William L. Hoge and Co , Inc., 103 NLRB 20.
3 The record does not disclose the date when the Hialeah plant was established nor the date
when the Intervenor included the Hialeah employees in its contract unit.
4Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, 100 NLRB 107; Underwood Corporation 101
NLRB 25.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represented by the Intervenor . The inspectors , of whom
there are 57, inspect materials and workmanship to insure
that the Employer' s products meet Government contract
specifications and the requirements of its private customers.
The one timekeeper performs the usual duties of that plant,
clerical classification . Of the 2 vehicl e drivers , 1 picks
up and delivers local communications ; delivers goods to
local customers ; and provides transportation for visiting
customers and Government officials . The other delivers raw
materials to the plant and finished goods to customers. The
2 tool-crib attendants issue supplies and tools to plant
employees . On the basis of the record , we find that these
employees are not managerial , but have common interests
with plant employees , and we therefore include inspectors,
timekeepers , vehicle drivers, and tool-crib attendants in the
production and maintenance unit.
The Employer would exclude, -as supervisors , the assistant
shipping clerk, the chief packer , and 2 leadermen, all of
whom have been previously included in the contract unit. The
assistant shipping clerk maintains records, makes out bills
of lading , and initials his own orders in the shipping depart-
ment under limited delegated authority. With the shipping
clerk, he directs the work of approximately 10 shipping
department employees . The chief packer and other packers
perform manual work. The chief packer also keeps records
and directs other packing employees . Leadermen are respon-
sible to the foremen for the production and work records of
particular groups of employees , whom they direct. Leadermen
devote 80 percent of their time to manual operations. The
assistant shipping clerk , the chief packer , and leadermen are
all authorized to recommend discharge , and each of them
responsibly directs other employees . We find , therefore, that
they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we
exclude them from the unit.6
We find that all production and maintenance employees at
the Employer' s Miami and Hialeah, Florida, metal products
manufacturing plants, including inspectors , timekeepers, ve-
hicle drivers , and tool - crib attendants , but excluding office-
clerical employees , technical and professional employees,
guards, watchmen , the assistant shipping clerk, the chief
packer, leadermen , and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act, is appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5Palmer Manufacturing Company, 103 NLRB 336 (inspectors and timekeepers ); Brighton
Mills, Inc., 97 NLRB 774 (vehicle drivers); Thermoid Company, 74 NLRB 524, 526; cf. D
M Steward Manufacturing Company, 102 NLRB 461.
6The Wichita Water Company, 93 NLRB 895, 897; Edward Brothers, Inc., 95 NLRB 1451,
1453-1454; Miller Electric Company, 103 NLRB 1492