R. C. Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1981

255 N.L.R.B. 1238 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
R. C. Plastics, Inc. and Local 164, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner.
Case 7-RC-15747
April 28, 1981
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
The National Labor Relations Board has consid-
ered determinative challenges to ballots cast in an
election held March 7, 1980,1 and the Hearing Of-
ficer's report recommending disposition of same.2
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions and brief and hereby adopts the Hearing
Officer's findings and recommendations, as modi-
fied herein.
The Hearing Officer found that Foremen Doug
Bradshaw, Kevin Ladd, and Robert Dobbelaere
were supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act
because they had authority, inter alia, to discipline
employees and to responsibly direct their work. He
also found that Foreman Bradshaw had principal
responsibility for the decision to discharge three
employees-Marian Webb, Dan Wollams, and
Linda Wollams. We find merit in the Employer's
exceptions to the Hearing Officer's conclusions
concerning these discharges and the part Bradshaw
played in them. However, we affirm the Hearing
Officer's conclusion that Bradshaw, Ladd, and
Dobbelaere are statutory supervisors because we
find that the record clearly establishes that they re-
sponsibly direct the work of employees.
The Employer produces custom injection plastic
molding for various industries, at a facility located
in Hillsdale, Michigan. It operates on three round-
the-clock shifts with a total work force of approxi-
mately 20 individuals. With the exception of Brad-
shaw, Ladd, Dobbelaere, and several individuals
classified as material handlers, the work force is
composed almost entirely of women. Co-owner
Lewis Cox exercises overall authority over the
Employer's operations in his capacity as plant man-
ager. 3 Together with Production Manager Jim
Reed, Cox also establishes production specifications
for individual jobs. Dobbelaere oversees the first
shift, Ladd the second shift, and Bradshaw the
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election, The tally was: 15 for, and 4 against, the Pe-
titioner; there were II challenged ballots, a sufficient number to affect
the results.
2 The Hearing Officer recommended overruling the challenges to eight
ballots but sustaining the challenges to three others. This recommenda-
tion would result in Petitioner's certification. The Employer has excepted
to the Hearing Officer's recommended sustaining of the three challenged
ballots. In the absence of exceptions we adopt, pro forma, the recom-
mended overruling of the challenges to the other eight ballots.
3 Co-owner Dan Laggis has primary responsibility for sales and has
little to do with production matters.
255 NLRB No. 161
third shift.4 In addition, each foreman is responsi-
ble for changing molds on machines, for insuring
the machines' proper operation, and for solving
production problems within his competence, in-
cluding making certain repairs. 5 Management meet-
ings are held during the first shift at which disci-
pline, employee work, and long- and short-term
production requirements and problems are dis-
cussed. The foremen participate in these meetings
and contribute comments and suggestions which
are sometimes followed. 6 Cox and Reed are also
generally available for consultations with foremen
on production problems or employees' performance
whenever the need arises. Both are present during
the first shift and the first 2 to 3 hours of the
second, and one or the other can always be
reached by phone at other times. The frequency of
such telephone contact appears to vary with the
nature of the production problems encountered
during a shift.7 Discussion of discipline or general
performance problems appears almost always to be
postponed until the next day.
Dobbelaere described the responsibilities of the
foremen in directing work as "keeping employees
busy and getting the work done." The record
shows that the foremen make all work assignments
and oversee the quality of production.8 To assist
the foremen in achieving the desired quality and
level of production, Cox provides them with a list
of production priorities and specifications. This list
is utilized by each foreman in conjunction with
production reports compiled by employees of the
previous shifts and serves as a guide for allocating
available production resources rather than as ex-
plicit directions for meeting contingencies. Once
jobs are set up on different machines in accordance
with the production specifications provided them,
the foremen seek to meet production requirements
primarily by minimizing loss of production time
due to disciplinary or conduct problems, by keep-
ing machines in operating order, and by coordinat-
4 The three shifts run from 7 a.m to 3 p.m., 3 to II p.m., and II p.m.
to 7 a.m.
S Testimony indicates that the three possess significant technical skills
and understanding of the Employer's production process.
Although the parties stipulated that the responsibilities and authority of
the three foremen are the same, work on the first shift differs slightly
from that on the second and third. Because both Cox and Reed are pres-
ent during the first shift, the Employer sets up most jobs and attempts to
solve basic production problems during that time. Dobbelaere therefore
spends more time performing setup work, including changing molds, than
either Ladd or Bradshaw. From the record it appears that Dobbelaere
may spend as much as 6 or more hours a day performing physical work,
while Ladd and Bradshaw spend considerably less time on such work.
F All three foremen are salaried, and Ladd and Bradshaw apparently
attend these meetings on their own time.
I Third Shift Foreman Bradshaw's testimony indicates that he contacts
Cox or Reed to discuss production problems only I to 2 nights a week.
I Thus, foremen routinely tell employees to redo inadequate work and
monitor employees' performance.
R. C. PLASTICS, INC. 1239
ing work and meal breaks to minimize loss of pro-
duction time. When machines become inoperative,
maintaining production involves deciding whether
to assign the operator of a machine to another ma-
chine or to other tasks, or whether to suggest to
Cox that the operator or another employee with
less seniority be sent home without pay. These de-
cisions entail judgments estimating how long a ma-
chine will be inoperative, determining whether
there is productive work an employee can be as-
signed to do to avoid sending her home, and decid-
ing which machines employees could best be as-
signed to operate. Although normally employees
are moved from machine to machine in a fixed
order of rotation in order to avoid fatigue, changes
in assignments which are made to increase produc-
tion or compensate for lost production due to ma-
chine breakdowns are based on the foremen's judg-
ment of the employee's ability to perform a partic-
ular job. The Employer does not have a system for
merit raises for production workers based on work
evaluations. However, the foremen routinely evalu-
ate and discuss employees' work with Cox as part
of their responsibility to maintain acceptable pro-
duction levels. They also monitor the work of
newly hired employees and report to Cox to assist
him in determining whether to continue their em-
ployment.
Testimony by employees indicates that they view
the foremen as their supervisors and generally obey
their orders to perform specific tasks. They look to
the foremen for direction and assignment of tasks,
and permission to take time off or use an office
telephone. They regularly bring work-related prob-
lems to their attention. Employees also testified
that work orders are often accompanied by threats
which they believe can result in loss of their jobs if
tasks are not performed. For example, on one occa-
sion, three boxes of excess scrap were run because
Foreman Dobbelaere was unavailable to fix a mal-
functioning machine. When employee Gayle John-
ston refused Dobbelaere's orders to sort the scrap
because she was behind on her work, Dobbelaere
told her, "I'm not here to work. I'm here to see
that you work. You either sort the scrap or there's
the door." Johnston sorted the scrap. Similarly,
Oretha Johnson testified that one evening employ-
ees were doing very fast work that involved pack-
ing and stacking boxes. Bradshaw ordered them to
make their own boxes as well, because the utility
person was unavailable to do that work. When
Johnson protested that was too much work, Brad-
shaw said, "You will do as I say, or else there is
the door." Both Dobbelaere and Bradshaw ad-
mitted using such threats to induce employees to
work. The record indicates that, when employees
question the foremen's authority over their general
conduct, the foremen may, if verbal exhortations
fail, reassert their authority by taking the problem
to Cox should they decide that the conduct in
question will probably recur and that it has a sig-
nificant effect on production.
Although Cox denied that the foremen have sig-
nificant disciplinary authority, he conceded that he
holds the foremen out to employees as "figure
heads" to facilitate operations. The record indi-
cates, however, that the foremen exercise substan-
tial actual authority as a result of their status as
"figure heads." Thus, Cox admitted knowing of the
use of threats of job loss to induce employees to
work and that he has not taken steps to clarify to
employees what he asserts to be the limited extent
of the foremen's authority to discipline them. Al-
though Cox has allowed an employee who left
work rather than perform a task directed by a fore-
man to return to work the next day, the employee
apparently forfeited her pay for the hours she
missed and there is no evidence the foreman was
disciplined or rebuked for inducing her to leave
work. Similarly, Cox encourages the foremen to
negotiate complaints and problems of employees
and to settle them without recourse to formal disci-
pline or higher management. Although employees
can and do appeal determinations by foremen,
there are no formal procedures for doing so and
such appeals appear to depend solely on the asser-
tiveness of the individual employee involved.9 As
stated, employees generally believe their jobs are in
jeopardy if they do not obey work orders by fore-
men. The extent to which Cox's approval of fore-
men's actions has reinforced employees' belief in
the foremen's disciplinary authority has resulted in
the foremen's actual ability to affect employees'
compensation and working conditions.' 0 The influ-
ence of the foremen is heightened by the fact that
they have clear discretion to decide which disci-
plinary problems so interfere with production to
warrant being brought to Cox's attention. " When
9 Thus. Cox testified that foremen are responsibile for catching obvious
discrepancies in employee timesheets. He also testified that employees
would complain to him if foremen affected their pay adversely by chang-
ing a timesheet over their objection. However, although employees testi-
fied foremen have on occasion told them to correct their sheets. no em-
ployee has ever complained about this to Cox.
10 In addition to loss of pay which may be suffered if an employee is
induced to leave work, foremen can affect compensation of employees by
correcting hours reported on timesheets on which pay is based. Tempo-
rary and permanent reassignments to certain jobs have also resulted in
differences in pay.
I Cox testified that he thought the foremen have authority to "point
out to [employees] that they were not doing proper work, that they were
not complying with requests or requirements of the job, and to indicate
to them that disciplinary action would be taken if they failed to meet
certain requirements]" The fact that the Employer appears to have few
rules or guidelines concerning employee conduct or performance adds to
Continued
R. C. PLASTICS, NC.
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foremen do tell Cox about a problem with an em-
ployee, they provide him with information about
the employee's conduct and performance, and on
occasion recommend that action be taken and what
that action should be. Cox testified that foremen
had on a number of occasions told him of employ-
ees they felt disrupted the work on a shift, or who
were unable to produce adequate numbers of parts,
and the foremen had, in effect, recommended that
such employees be fired. Although Cox testified
that the foremen never actually fired an employee
without his knowledge, he stated that he listened to
the foremen on these occasions and considered the
problems brought to his attention. Foremen have
been specifically authorized to investigate suspect-
ed employee misconduct, inform employees of dis-
charges, give oral reprimands, and announce broad
Employer policies. Similarly, while the record indi-
cates that the actual authority of the foremen inde-
pendently to grant time off to employees is limited
to requests for less than 8 hours, employees are not
told that any of their requests are transmitted to
Cox, and employees testified that they believe that
all such requests were granted or denied by the
foremen. 12
On the basis of the foregoing and the record as a
whole, we find that the foremen have authority to
and in fact use independent judgment to responsi-
bly direct the work of the employees in the interest
of the Employer. The record clearly shows that a
primary responsibility of the foremen is to maxi-
mize production work, and that considerations con-
cerning the level of production guide foremen's
nonroutine directions to employees. In fulfilling
their responsibilities, the foremen use independent
judgment to evaluate the work capability of em-
ployees, direct their work, and allocate production
resources in accordance with information provided
by the shift reports and lists of priorities furnished
them by Cox, and decide when employees' conduct
interferes with production. The authority which
they wield over employees by virtue of their desig-
nated positions in the Employer's supervisory hier-
archy is consciously and effectively used by them
the scope of the foremen's discretion in reporting problems with employ-
ee conduct. Cox also testified that the foremen themselves "feel that they
have the authority for disciplinary action beyond grabbing a broom or
taking a break . . . in case of work interruption of some kind."
12 Although the foremen testified that they must grant all routine re-
quests for time off and refer all other requests to Cox, they appear to
exercise some discretion in refusing such requests. Thus, Ladd admitted
that he had denied an employee's request to leave work early. Some em-
ployees testified that they were frequently "hassled" by Dobbelaere
before he granted their requests. Furthermore, the Employer has no writ-
ten policy or procedure for granting time off.
to facilitate their direction of production. Foremen
participate actively in management meetings at
which production problems and techniques are dis-
cussed. Our conclusions are reinforced by the fact
that the Employer's evaluation of the foremen is
based primarily not on their own production work
but on production levels on their shifts. Thus, in
addition to being paid individually negotiated sala-
ries ranging from $10,000 to $15,000, the foremen
are also paid a yearly bonus based partly on the
profitability of the Employer's operations. These
bonuses range from $2,000 to $5,000 and, when
combined with their base salaries, result in incomes
three times that of any production worker.' 3 Cox
testified that the purpose of this bonus is to encour-
age the foremen to promote productivity, and ad-
mitted that one purpose of the shift reports utilized
by the foremen is to facilitate competition between
the shifts. The record amply demonstrates the fore-
men's resultant identification with management.
Based on the above, we find that Robert Dobbe-
laere, Kevin Ladd, and Doug Bradshaw are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act and we sus-
tain the challenges to their ballots. As the remain-
ing challenges to ballots are not determinative of
the results of the election, we shall certify Petition-
er.
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Local 164, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, and that, pursuant to
Section 9(a) of the Act, the foregoing labor organi-
zation is the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees including ware-
house employees, and truck drivers employed
by the Employer at its facility located at 410
Hillsdale Street, Hillsdale, Michigan; but ex-
cluding office clerical employees; guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
'a In addition to substantially higher pay, foremen receive 2 to 4
weeks of paid vacation each year, as well as health insurance benefits.
Employees receive no vacation, and can have health insurance payments
deducted, but not paid, by the Employer.