Schott Metal Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1233 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

SCHOTT MITAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 1233
It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to make available to the
Board , upon request , payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the
amount of earnings due.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed , the commission of
similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall,
therefore , recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Union, Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Carl
Mangun , thereby discouraging the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By terminating the services of Helen Justice on October 16, 1959, Respondent
did not engage in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3)
and (I ) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Schott Metal Products Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-38?3. Janu-
ary 9, 1961
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 Charles Z. Adamson, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error are hereby affirmed.'
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and
Kimball].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer?
l At the hearing , the Employer attempted to litigate the adequacy of the Petitioner's
showing of interest and moved on ground of inadequate showing to dismiss the petition.
The hearing officer properly denied the motion. The sufficiency of the Petitioner's show-
ing of interest is an administrative matter and is not subject to litigation in this proceed-
ing. Moreover , we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of interest
is adequate . O. D. Jennings and Company , 68 NLRB 516.
2 After the hearing, International Brotherhood , of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, Local 497, herein called the Intervenor , moved to intervene in this
proceeding for the purpose of having its name appear on the ballot. The Petitioner
129 NLRB No. 155.
586439-61-vol. 129-79
1234 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 parties, including the Intervenor, agree that a unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's Akron, Ohio,
plant, is appropriate. However, the Employer would include in the
requested unit six "leadmen," namely, Calvin Finch, Cecil Hampton,
Robert Costello, Arthur Snyder, Herman Dillon, and Arthur Carl,
while the Petitioner would exclude these individuals as supervisors.
The Intervenor has not taken a definitive position with respect to the
unit placement of these individuals.
The Employer is in the business of producing automobile accessories
at its Akron, Ohio, plant. This plant is composed of two contiguous
buildings, namely, the main building, where the offices and main pro-
duction area are located, and the auxiliary building, which is devoted,
primarily, to shipping and receiving and storage. The record in-
dicates that, as of the date of the hearing, the Employer had approxi-
mately 59 employees in the production end of its operation.
The Employer's plant is under the general supervision of a plant
superintendent, while under him are two other supervisors. We are
satisfied on the basis of the entire record that the six disputed lead-
men-Calvin Finch, Cecil Hampton, Robert Costello, Arthur Snyder,
Herman Dillon, and Arthur Carl-assign work to employees under
them, inspect to see that the jobs are being properly performed, and
relay orders from higher supervision to employees in their "crews."
However, the leadmen are the more experienced employees and such
direction of the work of others does not appear to require the use of
independent judgment, but rather appears to be routine in nature,
reflecting the relationship of the more experienced to the less ex-
perienced employee. Moreover, the record indicates and we find that
none of the leadmen have authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or
change the status of any employee. And while it does appear that
they make recommendations in some of these respects, such recom-
objects to the intervention on the ground that the Intervenor has not established a proper
showing of interest . The records reflect that prior to the filing of the instant petition,
the Intervenor filed unfair labor practice charges against the Employer on behalf of a
number of employees of the Employer in the unit herein found appropriate These
charges, involving Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3) violations , have been sustained by the Board,
and the Board , inter alga, has ordered reinstatement of a number of the Intervenor's
supporters ( See Schott Metal Products Company, 128 NLRB 415 .) We find, under these
circumstances , that the Intervenor has a claim to representation sufficient for purposes of
intervention . Cf. Kennecott Copper Corporation , 98 NLRB 966 , 967, footnote 2
S The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that no election should be
directed until after the disposition of the unfair labor practice charges against it , referred
to above in footnote 2. The Intervenor, who was the charging party in that case, has
waived the matters involved in that proceeding as a basis for objection to any election
that might be directed herein Consequently , as the Board has issued its decision in the
unfair labor practice case and as the Employer cannot raise its own misconduct as a bar
to an election, the Employer ' s motion to dismiss on this ground is denied . See H. N.
Thayer Company, 112 NLRB 792, 793-794.
CHALLENGE -COOK BROS ., INCORPORATED 1235
mendations are subject to independent investigation and action by
higher supervision. Accordingly, we find that these six leadmen
neither responsibly direct other employees nor possess any of the other
statutory indicia of supervisory authority. Thus, they are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act. We shall, therefore, include
them in the unit 4
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Akron,
Ohio, plant, including leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 Mead -Atlanta Paper Company, 123 NLRB 306 , 309-310; West Virginia Pulp and Paper
Company, 122 NLRB 738, 740-741 , 744-747.
Challenge-Cook Bros., Incorporated 1 and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, Local 92, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-RC-
64.95. January 9, 1961
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 Max Steinfeld, hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Kimball].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's La Mirada and Bandini, Cali-
fornia, facilities and the structural assembly department at a third
' The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
129 NLRB No. 147.