Pent Electric Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 20, 195195 N.L.R.B. 1186 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of counneree V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent. Charbonnean I'a(king Corporation, has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in 1 lie case, I make the following : CONcLUSioA5 OF LAW 1. Fruit and Vegetable Packers and W'arehouseinen's onin, Local Union No. 760, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, of the Act, the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Respondent has not discriminated as to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of Coy Martin, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume ] PENT ELECTRIC CO,IIPANY, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITEI AUTO-MOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER . Case No. 7-RC-116&. August °20, 1951 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 Jerome H. Brooks, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. i The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing 2 The hearing officer properly overruled the Employer' s motion to adjourn the hearings because of unfair labor practice charges which the Petitioner had filed against it. The Petitioner has filed a waiver of Its right to object to any election directed herein on the basis of the unfair labor practice charge which it has filed against the Employer, thus leaving no basis for the Employer's motion. Cf. Harold F. Cross d/b/a Southwestern Michigan Broadcasting Company , 92 NLRB No 230. 95 NLRB No. 165. PENT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 1.187 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. . 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 to represent a unit of all employees of the Employer at Peritwater, Michigan, excluding all office and clerical employees, professional employees, salesmen, timekeepers, assistant foreladies, assistant foremen, foreladies, foremen, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. The Employer is in substantial agree- ment with the unit requested. However, the parties are unable to agree on the unit placement of nine individuals who are employed as table leaders. The Petitioner desires their inclusion and the Employer con- tends that they should be excluded as supervisors. The Employer's plant consists of one plant building and a warehouse located nearby., The Employer manufactures wiring harnesses and electrical specialties. These operations are carried on at a number of tables in the plant. Apparently all of the tables are located in one area not widely separated from each other. The approximately 125 production' workers sit at the tables in groups of from 6 to 17 and work under the supervision of the production supervisor. Each-table has one -table leader who helps train the new employees and who. sees. that the production flows smoothly from his table. The table leader keeps sufficient materials on hand for the production workers to use. in manufacturing.the items being produced at the table. The table leader does not decide what items shall be, produced. The Employer contends that the table leaders. are not required to. perform production, work. The table leaders do . not have specific work locations assigned to them but step into the production process wherever it appears that help is needed. The only table leader who. testified denied the Employer's assertion that the table leaders were. told that they did not have to. engage in production work, and it appears that at least several of them spend 90 percent of their time. performing such work. The Employer asserted that the table leaders. can effectively recommend the discharge or discipline of the other. .workers, and"that they-had in fact-done so. 'Howevver, no instance of, such an occurrence could be recalled. Although the table leaders can request the transfer of an employee who is holding up the production process, it appears that these changes are effected by the production supervisor, after an independent investigation. The table leaders aret hourly paid, receiving 15 cents more per hour than' the nonprobation 961974--52-vol. 95-76 1 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ary production workers . The table leaders enjoy the same vacation benefits , overtime pay, bonuses , and other privileges as the other work- ers. Although the ratio of supervisors to the number of employees supervised is ordinarily accorded considerable weight by the Board in determining the status of alleged supervisors ,s the Employer 's phys- ical structure in the instant case makes it possible for the production supervisor easily to observe the operations of the routine production process and to make herself available at tables where the exercise of supervisory authority is required . Under these circumstances, the mere number of employees supervised by the production supervisor is not controlling with regard to the supervisory status of the table leaders.' From the facts given above we find that the table leaders do not responsibly direct the work of the production workers , and that they do not in fact possess the authority effectively to recommend the hire, discharge, or other change in their working conditions , and are not, therefore , supervisors as defined in the Acte Accordingly , they are included in the unit. We find that all employees of the Employer at Pentwater , Michigan, including the table leaders, but excluding all office and clerical em- ployees, professional employees , salesmen , timekeepers , assistant fore- ladies, assistant foremen, foreladies , foremen, guards , and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Employer employs several categories of workers it contends are temporary and should not be eligible to vote in any election directed herein. The Petitioner agrees that one of these categories, a small group of high school students who work for the Employer during the summer for brief period 's and who have no prospects of becoming permanent employees , should not be eligible to vote, but the Petitioner contends that the other workers whom the Employer would disqualify should be permitted to vote. Probationary employees . The Employer requires its new employees to serve a 2-week probationary period before it considers them perma- nent employees and almost all of the probationary employees are retained at the end of the 2 -week period . We find that they are entitled to vote.6 s Cf. F. B. Silverwood , a corporation d/b/a Silverwood 's, 92 NLRB 1114, and cases cited therein. 4 Cf. Scott-Atwater Manufacturing . Company, Inc ., 90 -NLRB No. 9; compare United States Gypsum Company, 93 NLRB 91. 5 Cf. Foster Wheeler Corporation, 94 NLRB 211 ; Radio Industries, Inc., 91 NLRB cited therein. Cf. Gerber Products Company, 93 NLRB 1266. PENT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC . 1189 Seasonal employees. During the summer months between 30 and 40 employees sever their employment so that they may engage in other enterprises. In the fall months the majority of them return to the Employer and are reemployed if there are openings for them.7 The Employer contends that these employees are mere temporary employees whose employment is permanently severed when they leave its employ, and that they are therefore not eligible to vote.' The record reveals, however, that none of the nonprobationary employees are carried on the payroll as "temporary" employees and the Employer has no knowl- edge as to which of its employees will temporarily sever their employ- .went during the summer months. The employees who do leave for this period and return in the fall are treated no differently than any of the other nonprobationary employees. The Employer permits em- ployees who have been employed for 1 year, 1 week's vacation without pay, and employees who have been employed for 2 years, 2 weeks' vaca- tion without pay. It gives the employees who have not worked during the summer months the same privilege. These employees receive the same pay rates for the work that they perform as all other nonproba- tionary employees performing the same work. The seasonal employ- ees who return in the fall are not required to serve the 2-week proba- :tionary period when they are reemployed. These employees enjoy seniority rights based on the total number of years they have been with the Employer rather than on their length of service since the date of their last reemployment. At times these individuals have been placed in the position of table leaders. From all of the facts given above, we find that the employees who have left the Employer to engage in summer work have a reasonable expectancy of reemployment with the Employer in the near future 9 and are therefore eligible to vote 10 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 7 The record discloses no instance when such an employee has been refused reemployment upon his request. 8 The Employer 'apparently seeks to disqualify those employees in this category who have not left its employ for this summer by calling then "temporary employees," and those who have left for the summer by- contending that they have permanently severed their connections with, the Employer. • A majority of the employees,jn this category have worked for the Employer for two or more years. 10 Cf . Scott-Atwater Manufadturing Company, Inc., 90 NLRB -No. 9; Cherry and Webb Company, Providence, 93 NLR$8. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation