Pervel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 497 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

PERVEL CORPORATION 497
mill at Juncos, Puerto Rico, but excluding analysts, the chief mayor-
domo, the assistant engineer, chief of the powerplant or chief elec-
trician, mayordomp timekeeper, chief of the sugar warehouse, chief
of materials and supply warehouse and clerks, the sobrestante, chief
of railroad carts maintenance and repair, chief of railroad way
maintenance and repair, the railroad timekeeper, train dispatchers,
telephone system supervisor, all professional, administrative, and ex-
ecutive personnel, office clerical employees, watchmen, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Pervel Corporation and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC 1979. November 15,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION
On July 30, 1957, 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 of the First Region
among the employees in the stipulated unit. , Following the election,
the parties were -furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that
of 20 votes cast,, 10 were for the Petitioner, 8 were against the Peti-
tioner, and 2 were challenged by the Petitioner.
No objections to the election or to the conduct of the election were
filed. As the challenges are sufficient in number to affect the results
of the election, an investigation was made pursuant to Section 102.61
of the Board's Rules and Regulations bythe Regional Director, who
on August 21, 1957, issued his report on challenged ballots recom-
mending that'the two challenges be overruled. The Petitioner filed
timely exceptions to the report and the Employer filed a reply to the
exceptions.
The Board i has considered the Regional Director's report, the
Petitioner's exceptions thereto, the Employer's reply to the excep-
tions, and the entire record in this case and 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.
1 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.
119 NLRB No. 64.
476321-58-vol. 119-33
49S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 following employees of the Employer, as stipulated by the
parties, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Norwich,
Connecticut, plant, excluding office and plant clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The ballots challenged by the Petitioner were cast by Harry
Schauer and Arie Verburg.
In his report the Regional Director concluded that Schauer and
Verburg are not supervisors as defined in the Act and recommended
that their ballots be opened and counted.
The Employer is engaged in the machine printing of vinyl plastics
which is carried on in two adjoining and connected buildings. The
Regional Director finds that the Employer's work force of approxi-
mately 20 employees is directly supervised by the Employer's Vice
President Pickering with the assistance of one Visick, foreman of
press operations, and one Gobeil who is in charge of shipping and
banking.
Schauer and Verburg, who are on the day shift in separate build-
ings, and one Bunning, a night-shift worker whose employee status
is undisputed, are members of five-man press crews and are classified
as machine printers. Bunning devotes his full time to printing duties
and, unlike Schauer and Verburg, does not have an assistant printer
in his crew. Both Schauer and Verburg do certain manual work.
Thus, in addition to his presswork, Schauer does maintenance and
repair work both during and following the regular day shift. Schauer
has been employed by the Employer since 1946, and his hourly rate
of $2.85 is attributed to his dual skills and experience. Verburg
receives $2.07 and Bunning $2.17, while the press assistants of Schauer
and Bunning are respectively paid $1.93 and $1.76. Verburg, Bun-
ning, and Schauer are paid overtime and, with the exception of
Schauer, are required to punch the clock.
The Regional Director points out that no evidence was presented
to show that either Schauer or Verburg has authority to hire or fire
employees or to make effective recommendations as to personnel
action.
The Regional Director states that certain employees testified that
Pickering informed them that Verburg was in charge of the press
crew and two other employees and was- to handle their problems and'
ref er those he could not solve to Pickering. These employees also
told the Regional Director that Verburg asserted he was the f ore-
man and that he permitted an employee to leave early and allowed
PERVEL CORPORATION 499'
employees to send out for food.' However, the Regional Director
also points out that the same employees indicated that Verburg does
not assign work, that each employee knows his own particular job,
and that Verburg goes to the office when a pattern is finished and
secures instructions as to ensuing operations.
The Petitioner in its exceptions contends that Schauer is not a
printer and spends less than 1 hour daily in getting the printing
machine started. Schauer, according to the Petitioner, spends the
majority of his time directing the performance of the four printers
in his crew, ordering the machine stopped in the event anything goes
wto ig, determining whether employees who complete a particular
job should be required to do another before going home, giving em-
ployees permission to take time off, and issuing orders to Bunning
before Schauer leaves for the day. Similarly, the Petitioner con-
tends that Verburg is not a printer, spends approximately 3 hours
a day on the printing machine, and devotes the remainder of his
time to checking employees in the same manner as Schauer.
We agree with the Regional Director that Schauer and Verburg
are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The evidence
indicates, as the Regional Director found, that whatever authority
they possess as to other employees derives from their working skill
and experience.' In our opinion, Schauer and Verburg do not re-
sponsibly direct other employees. We note in this connection that
the Petitioner does not contend that Bunning, who works on the
night shift, is a supervisor even though no acknowledged supervisory
official is present to direct his activities. Moreover, the record shows
that the Employer's work force of about 20 employees has 3 super-
visors whose status is not in question. Two additional supervisors
would result in an unusually high ratio of 1 supervisor to every
4 employees.' Accordingly, we find that Schauer and Verburg are
employees within the meaning of the Act. We therefore overrule
the challenges to their ballots, as recommended by the Regional
Director, and shall direct that they be opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the First
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this direction,
open and count the ballots of Harry Schauer and Arie Verburg, and
serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.]
2 Pickering explained to the Regional Director that at a meeting of Verburg's crew he
directed that questions as to leaving the plant early were to be cleared by Pickering or
Visick through Verburg who is in charge of the press.
3 See Southern Bleachery and Print Works, Inc., 115 NLRB 787, 791. Because he con-
siders himself bound by the Board's decision in Southern Bleachery, Member Rodgers con-
curs in the unit placement herein.
4 See American Finishing Company, 86 NLRB 412, 417.