Phalo Plastics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 503 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

PHALO PLASTICS CORPORATION 503
Phalo Plastics Corporation and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-5396. March 31, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION , DIRECTION , AND ORDER
Upon investigation of challenges to ballots sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election held herein , the Regional Director
issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenged
ballots, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found, con-
trary to the Petitioner 's contention , that four of the challenged voters
were not supervisors , and recommended that the challenges to their
ballots be overruled and the ballots be opened and counted. As he
was unable to determine the status of the remaining five challenges,
he recommended that, if necessary , a hearing be directed to resolve
issues with respect thereto . The Petitioner filed timely exceptions
to the Regional Director 's report.
The Board 1 has considered the report and the exceptions, and
hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional
Director, with the modifications and additions below.
The Petitioner , in its exceptions , submitted evidence that Bondi,
Grant, Watt, and Gaudette , whom the Regional Director , as above
indicated , found to be within the unit, regularly attended weekly
meetings of supervisors , and that therefore a hearing was necessary
to resolve the issue as to their supervisory status. However, such
evidence , in our opinion , would be insufficient to warrant reversal
of the Regional Director 's findings as to these challenges. As the
Petitioner did not otherwise advance any independent evidence to
contradict his findings , we conclude that a hearing on such issue
would serve no useful purpose. Cf . The Hertner Electric Company,
116 NLRB 979, 981.
As to . Floorladies Glatki and Legare , the Regional Director found
the evidence insufficient to determine whether or not they were
supervisors and therefore recommended that, if necessary , the issue
be resolved by a hearing . Floorladies , however, were excluded from
the unit by stipulation of the parties . The Board has a well-estab-
lished policy of honoring concessions made in the interest of ex-
peditious handling of representation cases in general . If, after
an election , the Board were to permit parties to a representation
proceeding to repudiate their evidence on unit questions and give
them an opportunity to substitute other evidence , which was reason-
ably available at the time of the original hearing, there would be
no finality to such proceedings. As the only evidence presented on
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 Rodgers, Bean,
and Fanning].
123 NLRB No. 61.
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this issue was available at the time of the original hearing, and as
the stipulation does not contravene any Board policy or statutory
proscription, the Board finds that the parties, for the purposes of
the election, are bound by their stipulation. Therefore, without
passing upon the question of whether or not they in fact are
not supervisors, we sustain the challenges to the ballots of Glatki
and Legare. Cf. Stanley Aviation Corporation, 114 NLRB 178;
Consolidated Retail Stores, Inc., d/b/a Bon Marche, 118 NLRB
1621,1624.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the First
Region shall, within 10 clays from the date of this decision, open
and count the ballots of employees John L. Bondi, Elmer L. Grant,
Arthur C. Watt, and Clement A. Gaudette, the challenges to which
have been overruled herein, and serve upon the parties a revised
tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots.]
[The Board ordered that in the event the revised tally of ballots
indicates that the results of the election are not determinative, the
case be referred to the Regional Director for the First Region for
the purpose of arranging a hearing before a hearing officer to resolve
the issues raised by the challenges to the ballots of George H. Le-
Page, Ralph W. Darling, and Arthur D. Cunningham.]
REPORT ON CHALLENGED BALLOTS
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated November 21, 1958,
the Regional Director, on December 19, 1958, conducted an election among cer-
tain employees of the Employer. The tally of ballots cast at said election is as
follows:
Approximate number of eligible voters ------_ 364----------------------
Void ballots ---------------------------------------------------- 1
Votes cast for Petitioner ----------------------------------------- 165
Votes cast against participating labor organization -------------------- 160
Valid votes counted --------------------------------------------- 325
Challenged ballots ---------------------------=------------------ 9
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots -------------------------- 334
The challenges being determinative of the results of the election, the Regional
Director, pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board,
Series 7, has caused an investigation to be made and makes this his report thereon.'
Petitioner challenged the ballots of John L. Bondi, Elmer L. Grant, Arthur C.
Watt, Clement A. Gaudette, George H. LePage, Ralph W. Darling, Arthur D.
Cunningham, Joan Glatki, and Blanche A. Legare on the grounds that they are
supervisors as defined in the Act.2
Investigation reveals: 3
John L. Bondi and Elmer L. Grant are classified as setup men while Arthur C.
Watt is classified as an expediter. All work on the first shift in the cord set
i No objections were filed to conduct affecting results of the election.
The names of only Joan Glatki and Blanche Legare appeared on the eligibility list
furnished by Employer. The Employer states that the names of the remaining seven were
omitted since Employer was un'familiar with criteria which determine supervisors as de-
fined in the Act and therefore was undecided as to their status.
3 Petitioner contends that all or nearly all of the challengees attend a supervisors'
meeting which is held regularly every Friday afternoon. Credible testimony from the
Employer is that no such meetings occur at this time. The Employer does state that
PHALO PLASTICS CORPORATION 505
department under Leroy Laig and Arthur Fortin. All are hourly rated and receive
$1.85 hourly. They punch the timeclock, are paid for evertime and docked for
absence, and receive the same benefits as do other production employees. Gen-
erally, the duties of Bondi, Grant, and Watt are similar in that all are expected to
facilitate production processes in that section of the department wherein they work.
Bondi sets up machinery and equipment in the cutting operation of the depart-
ment which has four machines for which he is, responsible. He also changes
reels of wire and moves racks of wire to another department and repairs ma-
chinery if the breakdown is of a minor nature.
Grant sets up and services 13 small molding machines and changes and re-
builds dies that are necessary to the machines. He also gives job cards to em-
ployees which have previously been prepared by Laig and given to Grant by
Fortin.
Watt services a section of about 14 employees who operate molding machines.
He is responsible for material movement to and from these machines and for
machine control settings and makes sure that the quality of the product is con-
sistent with standards. He also receives job cards with the type of work and
machine already assigned and in turn gives these cards to the operators.
No evidence is presented or adduced to indicate that the jobs of Bondi, Grant,
or Watt embrace any of the characteristics of a supervisor as defined in the Act.
While, in the case of Grant and Watt, they do pass job cards to the employees,
these assignments are predetermined and neither Grant nor Watt contributes or
participates in this predetermination.
Therefore, the Regional Director concludes that Bondi, Grant, and Watt are not
supervisors as defined in the Act and recommends that the challenges to their
ballots be overruled.
Clement A. Gaudette is classified as head electrician. He is hourly paid,
punches the timeclock, is paid for overtime and docked for absence, and receives
the same benefits as do other production employees. Gaudette reports to Plant
Superintendent McQuiston as does also Roger Gaudette, another electrician who
works on his own and with and assisting Clement Gaudette. Their work has to do
with the installation, repair, and maintenance of the electrical equipment in the
plant and they are the only ones so employed.
Clement Gaudette receives an hourly rate of pay about 25 percent above that
of Roger Gaudette but he has no authority to discipline Roger Gaudette nor, in
their relationship, are any of the characteristics present upon which to conclude
that Clement Gaudette is a supervisor as defined in the Act. Rather, it appears
to the Regional Director that more appropriately the relationship can be con-
sidered as journeyman-helper or senior and junior. It is the conclusion of the
Regional Director that Clement Gaudette is not a supervisor as defined in the
Act and it is recommended that the challenge to his ballot be overruled.
George H. LePage, Ralph W. Darling, and Arthur Cunningham are employed
as "foremen" or "group leaders" in the extrusion department on the first, second,
and third shifts, respectively. The department complement of personnel is 9-10
on each shift including 7 machine operators whose hourly rate is $1.85. A de-
partmental superintendent, St. Jean, is in charge of all shifts of the extrusion
department along with the spooling and shipping groups to the number of 12
who work only on the first shift. St. Jean also functions as a tooling engineer,
maintaining and designing new extrusion equipment.
LePage, Darling, and Cunningham are hourly paid, punch a timeclock, and
are docked for absence and paid for overtime. They receive the same benefits
as other eligible employees. Their hourly rate is $2.25 per hour. All are senior
employees and at one time were extruder operators but, according to St. Jean,
"as we grew, we decided we needed group leaders to oversee production methods
and to see that these boys we hired without experience became qualified operators."
According also to St. Jean, production orders come from the main office to
his office and there the jobs are separated to each extrusion machine. There is a
shop assignment board for each machine and St. Jean, with an office man, sets
up a 30- to 36-hour advance schedule for each machine, the group leaders passing
management meetings of supervision are held regularly on Tuesdays but that none of 'the
challengees have ever attended such meetings. Some of the challengees, however, do
attend monthly safety meetings , the sole topic of the discussion thereat being plant
safety measures.
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the jobs as scheduled to the operators or the operators may take the job cards
themselves.
According to Plant Superintendent McQuiston, St. Jean, and the group leaders
themselves, they hand out these work assignments as prearranged, make sure
there are the necessary tools to run the job, check raw materials for quantity and
according to card specification, assist in setting up, pick out dies, check the ma-
chines, and cause operators to correct any defect, etc. It is said that no authority
rests with the group leaders, that theirs is a routine activity with all authority
existing primarily and entirely with St. Jean.
St. Jean has an office in sight of the extrusion department but there is a ques-
tion as to how much time he spends in the office and with other duties and how
much time he spends on the extrusion floor. He leaves the plant between 5 and
6 p.m. daily. While there is a second shift superintendent, LeBaire, he has no
authority over extrusion. On the third shift, the extrusion, braiding, shielding,
and lacquering departments operate, the latter three under a group leader, Sheeran.
Thus, at least from 5 to 6 p.m. through the third shift which ends at 7 a.m., Darling
and Cunningham are in departmental charge in loco. Darling says that after
St. Jean leaves, he has charge of the smooth operation of the department until
11 p.m. when Cunningham takes over. McQuiston says that there is no third-
shift supervision apart from Sheeran and Cunningham who are responsible to
some extent for reporting irregularities both in personnel and equipment.
According to Petition's affiants, LePage, Darling, and Cunningham perform
little or no manual work, assign jobs, act as clearing agents for all departmental
problems, consider themselves as "bosses," and are so considered by plant per-
sonnel.
Joan Glatki and Blanche Legare are known as floorladies 4 or floorgirls by those
with whom they work. Both work the 2:30-11 p.m. shift, Glatki in assembly
department and Legare in cord set, the departments having some 60 and 40 girls,
respectively. The second shift is supervised by the night superintendent, LeBaire,
who also supervises the braiding and shielding operation.
First-shift cord set operations of about 60 employees are, as previously stated,
in charge of Laig, assisted by Fortin. First-shift assembly operations are in charge
of Regis Breault, assisted by Robert McClure and Richard Meyers. There is
thus on the first shift an intervening authority between superintendency and
floorladies, which condition is not present for all or a large portion of the second
shift, and all of the third shift.
Both Glatki and Legare are hourly paid, punch a timeclock, are paid for over-
time and docked for absence, and receive the same benefits as do the production
employees. Glatki receives $1.40 and Legare $1.35 hourly. Both assembly and
cord set departments are on incentive and the earnings of the employees therein
in substantial percentage equal or exceed these hourly rates.
The work of the floorladies is described by McQuiston as routine and includes
the physical transportation of production units from one operation to another;
interpretation of specifications as related to correct performance of individual
bench operations; some inspection responsibility; some set-up of jigs and fixtures;
and check of production records for reasonable accuracy. They hand out job
cards although on the basis of the predetermined schedules. The Employer states
that no authority for personnel action or responsible assignment rests with either
Glatki or Legare.
Petitioner's affiants aver that Glatki and Legare give out the work and instruct
employees in the performance of the work; shift employees from one job to
another; canvass girls as to their unemployment compensation status as a basis
for layoff, approve timecards for downtime, etc.
In the opinion of the Regional Director, sufficient doubt exists as to the actual
status of LePage, Darling, Cunningham, Glatki, and Legare to warrant develop-
ment of a full record as a basis for determination by the Board as to whether they
are or are not supervisors as defined in the Act, if count of their ballots is necessary
to the conclusiveness of the election.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
4 Floorladies were excluded from the unit by stipulation of the parties on grounds that
they were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. However, Glatki, Legare, and the
two first-shift floorladies were included on the eligibility list. The latter (Severy and
Pusa) voted without challenge.