Ohio Ferro Alloys Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 504 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OHIO FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 8-RC-
2046. December 23, 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 Paul Wein-
garten, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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 cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In its petition, as amended at the hearing, the Petitioner
seeks a residual unit composed of office and clerical employees,
laboratory employees, the stores clerks, and the stores
secretary, excluding production and maintenance employees,
plant guards, and supervisors. The Petitioner is presently the
certified bargaining agent of a production and maintenance
unit, from which the employees it now seeks to represent
separately were specifically excluded.' The Employer raises
four objections to the petition: (1) The Petitioner cannot prop-
erly claim to represent employees excluded from the produc-
tion and maintenance unit, when it declares its intention of
including these employees in the same local union and under the
same contract with the production and maintenance employees;
(2) it is inappropriate to join the laboratory employees, who are
technical employees, together with office and clerical employees
and stores employees, or to join the latter two groups; (3) the
unit of laboratory employees should specifically exclude pro-
fessional employees; and (4) the office and clerical employees
should be excluded as confidential employees. The Employer's
objections will be disposed of in our findings below.
The Office and Clerical Employees
There are 2 individuals in this category, 1 of whom is des-
ignated the office manager. Both do stenographic and general
office clerical work for the plant superintendent, who is in
charge of labor relations matters at the plant level. The duties
of both of these clericals include the handling of correspondence
between the plant superintendent and officers of the corporation,
personnel files of all employees, and data pertaining to griev-
[Ohio Ferro Alloys Corporation, Case No. 8-RC-1512, not reported in printed volumes of
Board Decisions.
107 NLRB No. 119.
OHIO FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION 505
ances and labor relations generally. As it is clear on the record
that these 2 individuals in the course of their regular duties
actively handle confidential materials relating to labor re-
lations, we find that they are confidential employees.
The Laboratory Employees
The laboratory department is separately located and super-
vised. The chief chemist and assistant chief chemist, who are in
charge of the department, have and exercise authority to hire
and discharge laboratory employees. Accordingly, we findthey
are supervisors as defined in the Act.
There are 6 employees in the laboratory classified as
analysts. These are hourly paid employees who make routine
analyses of raw materials and finished products to determine
whether the materials tested meet the specifications required
for the manufacture of the ferro alloys on order with the Em-
ployer. The analysts are not required to have any educational
background. While the Employer indicated at the hearing that
its policy was not to transfer any production and maintenance
employees to the laboratory as analysts, it appears that 3 such
transfers were made for personal reasons involving the trans-
ferees. We are of the opinion that the work performed by the
analysts is of a routine character, that they are not professional
employees or technical employees, 2 and that their interests are
not essentially different from those of production and main-
tenance employees.
A sample preparation man is employed in the laboratory
whose primary functions are to prepare samples of materials
for analysis, after first obtaining such samples from various
departments in the plant. He is hourly paid. The Employer does
not require that this employee have any technical or educa-
tional background. We find likewise that this individual is not
a professional or technical employee.
A chemist is employed in the laboratory in addition to the
chief and assistant chief chemists. Although it was testified
that the chemist has, on occasion, assumed "supervisory
duties" there is no contention that he is a supervisor under the
Act. However, the Employer argues that the chemist is a pro-
fessional employee under the Act. The chemist, a salaried
employee, works under the direction of the chief chemist, who
holds a college degree and has "extensive training" in
chemistry and metallurgical work. The chemist himself has 32
years of practical experience in chemistry and metallurgy; he
has some college training but no degree. While the record is not
specific as to the duties of the chemist, it does appear that he
functions generally to assist the chief and assistant chief
2See Arnold Hoffman & Co., Inc., 95 NLRB 907; Greenbrier Dairy Products Co.. 100 NLRB
432.
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chemists in all respects excepting supervision , including the
setting up of procedures for the testing of materials by the
analysts . It also appears that the Employer required or sub-
stantially relied upon the long practical experience of the
chemist in hiring him . On the basis of this record , we believe
that the chemist falls within the requirements of the definition
of professional employee under the Act.'
The Stores Employees
The stores department is separately located andis-under the
supervision of the storekeeper , who is not sought by the Pe-
titioner . There are 3 employees classified as stores clerks,
whose functions are generally to unpack materials and store
them in the warehouse section of the department , to disburse the
materials upon requisition, to keep records of disbursements
and a perpetual inventory of all materials , and to maintain re-
lated files . A stores secretary is also employed in the depart-
ment. She performs clerical and secretarial work, and handles
correspondence relative to bids, placement of orders, pur-
chases, and inquiries on materials . These 4 stores employees
are hourly paid. We find that they are essentially plant clericals.
In the prior Board decision , as already noted, the laboratory
and stores employees were excluded by agreement of the
parties from the production and maintenance unit there found
appropriate . The exclusion of these employees being based upon
the parties ' stipulation rather than a Board determination, the
Employer' s contention in effect that these employees may not
now be included in the unit , presently represented by the Pe-
titioner , is without merit .4 As we have found here that the lab-
oratory employees are not technical employees and the stores
employees are plant clericals , there appears no reason for
separating these groups for representation purposes , as urged
by the Petitioner, from the existing production and maintenance
unit. We find, therefore , that they may appropriately be in-
cluded as part of the production and maintenance unit, if they so
desire. However , we shall exclude the chemist , because of his
diverse interests as a professional employee.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in
the following voting group of employees at the Employer' s Bril-
liant, Ohio, plant, excluding the production and maintenance em -
ployees, the confidential ( office and clerical ) employees, the
chief and assistant chief chemists , the storekeeper, plant
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act:
All laboratory and stores employees , including the analysts,
the sample preparation man, the stores clerks, and the stores
secretary , but excluding the chemist.
3 See, e. g., Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666; The Colorado Milling and Elevator
Co., 87 NLRB 1091.
4See Mack Motor Truck Corp , 106 NLRB 618.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 507
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner , they shall be deemed to constitute a part of the
existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Di-
rector will issue a certification of results of election to such
effect.
5. A question was raised at the hearing involving the eligi-
bility of 3 analysts ( Savage, Hutkai, and Miller ) who had been
severed from the Employer ' s payroll . These employees were
held by the Board to have been discriminatorily discharged.5
Although the Board ' s decision in the unfair labor practice case
is before a United States court of appeals for enforcement, we
find , in accordance with precedent , that the Board's decision in
that proceeding is binding upon the Employer unless and until it
is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction . 6 We therefore
find that the employees in question are eligible to vote in the
election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Ohio Ferro Alloys Corporation, 104 NLRB 542.
6See Stationers Corporation, 97 NLRB 601.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
Petitioner . Case No . 15-RC-925. December 23, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by
the Board on June 3, 1953 , 1 an election by secret ballot was
conducted orr June 12 , 1953, under the supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region among the produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's West Point,
Mississippi , plant . Upon completion of the election, the
parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed
that of approximately 357 eligible voters, 345 cast valid ballots,
of which 143 were for, and 202 against , the Petitioner.
On June 18, 1953 , the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election. In ac-
cordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on September
4, 1953 , issued and served on the parties his report on objec-
tions, in which he recommended that some of the objections be
sustained and others overruled , and that the Board set aside
the election and direct a new election . Thereafter the Employer
filed exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report in which it
moved that the Board overrule the Regional Director and
certify the results of the election.
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
107 NLRB No. 111.