Rodney Milling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 177 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of RODNEY MILLING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GRAIN MILLERS, LOCAL 16, A. F. of L., PETITIONER
Case No. 17-RC-586.-Decided January 17, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William J.
Scott, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations 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 appropriate unit :
The parties are in general agreement that the appropriate unit
should consist of all employees in the Employer's products control
department, which is composed of the laboratory, bake shop, and sani-
tation divisions, excluding supervisors and all other employees.'
Exclusive of the 3 individuals in the department whose supervisory
status is agreed on by the parties,' there are 10 persons in the unit
' In its original petition, the requested unit was described as consisting of "all laboratory
employees." The Petitioner explained at the hearing , however, that this was done because
of a mistaken belief on its part that this description referred to the employees in all
divisions of the products control department . The Employer agreed to the amendment
of the unit description as stated in the text upon the understanding that the change was
one of nomenclature only.
2 Whlnnery, head of the department, Wiebe, assistant head and chief chemist, and Sted-
man, head of the sanitation division.
88 NLRB No. 42.
177
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
requested by the Petitioner.3 The Employer agrees to the inclusion
of 7 of these, but contends that the remaining 3 should be excluded :
2 as professionals and supervisors and the third as a professional
,employee.
The products control department, which is located in Kansas City,
Missouri, serves all of the Employer's mills, wherever located. It
performs chemical analyses and baking and other tests on the grains
used and the grain products produced, to control the quality and com-
-position of the products. It also develops and directs the use of meas-
inres to keep grain and grain products free from insect infestation and
-contamination. The technical facilities of the department are also
:made available to commercial users of grain products for the diagnosis
and solution of practical problems encountered in the use of such prod-
ucts, whether or not produced by the Employer. These functions are
,carried on under the supervision of the head and the assistant head of
the department, who direct the work of all three divisions. The as-
sistant head of the department is also specifically in charge of the
laboratory division, in his capacity as chief chemist. Because of the
-frequent absences of the head of the department to attend conventions
and meetings and visit the Employer's customers, the assistant head
.of the department spends a substantial proportion of his time serving
as acting head, handling the necessary office work, correspondence, and
administrative duties.
Robert Craig, one of the two individuals whom the Employer claims
to be both a professional and a supervisor, is employed in the labora-
tory as assistant to the chief chemist. The evidence indicates that
-Craig is regularly responsible for the day-to-day continuity of labora-
tory operations, organizing and directing the work and making as-
signments to laboratory employees. He performs these functions
whether the chief chemist is present or absent, and, in addition, serves
as acting chief chemist when that officer is fulfilling the duties of
assistant or acting head of the products control department. Although
it is not entirely clear from the evidence whether Craig is authorized
-to or does in fact hire, discharge, discipline, or otherwise affect the
-status of employees or effectively recommend any such action, we find
on the basis of the record that he responsibly directs the work of his
-subordinates, and shall therefore exclude him from the unit as a
supervisor.
Kenneth Fee is the other person as to whom the Employer asserts
both professional and supervisory status. Fee is in charge of the bake
shop. He spends much of his time performing the same types of
3 The Petitioner is already the bargaining representative of the production and mainte-
nance employees at the Employer 's Kansas City plant.
RODNEY MILLING COMPANY 179
operations as are performed by the two other bake shop employees.
In addition, the evidence in that he exercises some degree of
control over their working hours,4 that he makes work assignments,
that he decides what types of baking tests are to be made, and
develops and directs the use of new formulae when he considers it
appropriate or necessary. As in the case of Craig, the evidence does
not clearly indicate the extent to which Fee exercises or may exercise
authority in personnel matters. We find, however, on the basis of the
record, that Fee responsibly directs the work of the bake shop em-
ployees, and shall exclude him from the unit as a supervisor.
In view of our findings as to the supervisory status of Craig and
Fee, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the Employer's contention
that they are also professionals
Richard Wright, an employee in the sanitation division, is the third
person whom the Employer urges us to exclude from the unit. No
claim is made that Wright is a supervisors While it is clear from the
evidence that Wright has long experience and considerable skill in
handling the problems of insect control in grain milling, the record
as a whole fails to sustain the Employer's contention that Wright is
a professional employee within the meaning of the Act. We shall
therefore include Wright in the unit.
We find that all employees in the laboratory, bake shop, and sanita-
tion divisions of the Employer's products control department at
Kansas City, Missouri, excluding supervisors and all other employees
of the Employer, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
4 Working hours in the bake shop are staggered on baking days , in order to increase the
length of the working day without increasing the hours of individual employees. Fee
decides who shall report on the earlier and who on the later shift, and also decides on
which days no baking will be done so that the staggered -hours policy will not apply.
5 In opposition to the Employer 's claim of supervisory status for Craig and Fee, the
Petitioner contends, among other things, that a finding that they are supervisors would
result in an unreasonably high ratio of supervisors to rank -and-file employees in relation
to the ratio among the Employer ' s production and maintenance employees . This contention
is without merit . The organization and operations in the mills are in no way comparable to
those of a highly specialized technical department such as the one now before us. With
respect to the Petitioner ' s other contentions , as our opinion makes clear , we have not relied
upon Craig's and Fee ' s affidavits as to the nature of their functions , nor upon the basis upon
which they are paid , and have regarded the nonsupervisory work they perform as offset, for
purposes of our finding , by the degree of supervisory responsibility they exercise , as shown
by the entire record . Cf. Queen City Furniture Company, Inc ., 87 NLRB 634.
6 Stedman, a supervisor (see footnote 2, supra), and Wright constitute the entire sanita-
tion division.
882191-51-13
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by American Federation of Grain Millers, Local 16, A. F. of L.