Sharp & Dohme, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1944

58 N.L.R.B. 1579 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of SHARP & DOHME, INC. and LOCAL #86, UNITED GAS,
COKE & CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CON-
GRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. 4-R-1367
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
DIRECTION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 30, 1944
On July 7, 1944, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Elections
issued by the Board herein on June 16, 1944,1 five separate elections by
secret ballot were conducted under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Penn-
Sylvania). Upon the conclusion of the elections, Tallies of Ballots
were furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board.
Since the results of the elections conducted among three (the print-
ing trades groups) of the five voting groups showed conclusively that
a labor organization had been selected by a majority of the employees
in each of the three voting groups as their collective bargaining repre-
sentative, and since no objections to the conduct of the elections were
filed by any of the parties, the Board certified the victorious organiza-
tions on July 24, 1944.2
As to the balloting among the two remaining voting groups, namely,
the remaining production and maintenance employees, and the office
clerical employees, the Tallies showed the following results :
GROUP No. 4-REMAINING PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
Approximate number of eligible voters ---------------------- 1, 400
Valid votes counted ---------------------------------------- 1,005
Votes cast for Sharp & Dohme Employees ' Organization-----_ 444
Votes cast for C. I. 0 Local 86, U. G. C C. \V of America____ 537
Votes cast against participating unions --------------------- 24
Challenged ballots ---------------------------------------- 141
Void ballots----------------------------------------------- 4
1 56 N L . R B 1471.
2 57 N L R. B 645.
58 N. L R B., No. 284.
1579
1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GROUP No. OFFICE CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------ 350
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------- 253
Votes cast for Sharp & Dohme Employees' Organization-------- 245
Votes cast against participating union------------------------ 8
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------ 95
Void ballots------------------------------------------------ 1
On July 13, 1944, the Company filed with the Board a Petition for
Reconsideration of Decision and Direction of Elections, in which the
Board was requested to set aside the elections conducted among Groups
Nos. 4 and 5, above, and direct a new election in a single unit which
would include all clerical employees with the production and main-
tenance employees. On July 24, 1944, the Board issued an Order dis-
pensing with the customary report of the Regional Director on chal-
lenged ballots and directing that a hearing be held "for the purpose of
obtaining evidence to aid the Board in ruling upon the challenges and
determining whether the Company's production clerical employees can
be distinguished from its office clerical employees."
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a further hearing
was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between August 17 and 25,
1944, inclusive, before Robert F. Koretz, Trial Examiner. The Com-
pany; Local $ 86 United Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called
the C. I. 0.; and Sharp & Dohme Employees' Organization, herein
called the Independent, appeared, participated, and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Trial
1 xaminer made at the further hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties filed briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANY'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In its petition for reconsideration, the Company contends that the
Board erred in splitting "office clerical from production clerical em-
ployees,,including the latter with production and maintenance work-
ers, while grouping the former into a separate bargaining unit." In
support of this contention, the Company reiterates the factors which
we considered in the original hearing as favoring a single, comprehen-
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1581
sive unit of all the Company's non -supervisory , non-confidential em-
ployees. In addition , the Company argues that the great number of
challenges in the elections conducted among Groups Nos. 4 and 5 in-
dicates that no proper distinction can be made between production
clerical and office clerical employees . At the hearing, however, the
Company and the Independent admitted that a division between the
two groups was not impossible.
In directing the further hearing in the instant proceeding , the Board
had no intention of modifying its unit determination as respects the
Company's employees unless it developed that a reasonable division
could not be made among the Company's clerical employees on the
basis of whether they were office clericals or production clericals. We
are convinced by the record made at the further hearing that such a
division is entirely feasible . Accordingly, we shall not reconsider our
unit determination but shall proceed to rule upon the challenged bal-
lots. The Company's petition for reconsideration of our Decision is
hereby denied.
II. THE CHALLENGED BALLOTS
Of the 141 challenges in Group No . 4, 90 were made by the C. I. O.
on the ground that the persons challenged were office clericals and
should have voted in Group No. 5. These same voters also cast chal-
lenged ballots in Group No. 5, and thus represent 90 of the 95 chal-
lenges made in that group. Of the remaining 51 challenges in Group
No. 4, 40 were made on the ground that the persons voting were super-
visory employees ,3 7 were made by the C. I. O. on the ground that said
voters were professional employees , and 4 represent miscellaneous
challenges.
Inasmuch as the great bulk of the challenges in Group No . 5 will be
disposed of by ruling on the challenges in Group No . 4, and could not,
in any event , affect the results of the election conducted among the em-
ployees in Group No. 5, it is unnecessary to consider such challenges
independently of the challenges in Group No . 4. Since we have de-
cided not to reconsider our unit determination , and since the results of
the election in Group No . 5 are conclusive , we shall hereinafter certify
the Independent as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in that group.
During the hearing, the parties stipulated that 27 of the challenged
voters were eligible to vote in Group No. 4, and 1 in Group No. 5. The
a The C. I 0 challenged 38, the Company 1, and the Independent 1.
609591-45-vol . 5 8-10 5
1582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
following chart indicates the effect of such stipulations upon the total
challenges :
m
Number of challenges
Challenged as-
Total number
of challenges RemainingDisposed of
by stipulation for Boardruling
Belonging in Group No 5____________ -_____------ 90 •5 85
Being supervisory ------------ -------- ---------- 40 t22 18
Being professional -------------------------------------------- 7 0 7
"Miscellaneous "----------------------- -------- 4 $1 3
141 28 ,113
*Stipulated as eligible to vote in Group No 4 Gloria Barber, Carl Grey, Margaret Johnson, and Ethel
Wilson, stipulated as eligible to vote in Group No 5 Isabel McShane
tStipulated not to be supervisory employees
Fred Bailey D Granato Raymond Orr
Frank Bauer Allen Heird Frank Pettit
Albert Baxter Reinhard Keeler George Pieper
J H Beattie Ferd Klosman J Edward Rich
Thomas Callahan Eliz McMath Rose Trout
Walter Carter Dorothy McNamara Donald Wetzel
Mary Czernik Marie Myers Edwin Williams
Stella Donnelly
Stipulated as eligible to vote in Group No. 4 Jack Moskowitz.
The 113 challenged ballots remaining for Board ruling will be treated
in 4 sections on the basis of the reasons for the challenges. Within
the first section, the order of treatment will be by departmental loca-
tion of the challenged voters 4
A. Challenged as office clericals
1. Biological Production Division
(a) Biological packaging department
Emily Bruce is stenographer to W. Smith, manager of the depart-
ment. Her desk is in an office with the desk used by Smith and a
desk occasionally used by J. E. Schneider, the division director 5
Bruce spends 85 to 90 percent of, her time within the office ; the re-
mainder is spent in seeing departmental supervisors to gather infor-
mation for Smith. Bruce takes dictation from Smith and Schneider,
types correspondence, prepares departmental reports and maintains
various records and files. Among other things, she totals time cards
for the department; prepares lists of absentees for the manager and
personnel department; maintains lateness and absentee records; pre-
pares, at the instruction of the department manager, "Personnel
Changes and Pay roll Authorization" forms which • are used in the
it is to be noted that the Company is divided into 14 divisions . Not all the divisions
have employees whose votes were challenged °
Schneider ' s regular office is at the Glenolden plant.
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1583
requisitioning, transferring, terminating, or changing the job, or rate,
of employees; and maintains a file of such forms.6
At the original hearing, the C. I. O. sought to exclude as confiden-
tial employees secretaries and stenographers assigned to supervisory
employees of the rank of assistant department manager and above.
The record made at that hearing indicated that only secretaries as-
signed to supervisory employees of the rank of division director and
above were confidential employees. They, accordingly, were excluded
from both Groups Nos. 4 and 5. The additional evidence adduced at
the further hearing indicates that several stenographers and clerks
to assistant department managers and to department managers also
have access to confidential personnel information. On the basis of
such additional evidence, we find Emily Bruce to be a confidential
employee not entitled to vote. Moreover, her functions are such that
even should she not have access to confidential personnel matters, we
would clearly regard her as an office clerical employee rather than a
production clerical. Despite her classification by the Company, her
relationship is that of a secretary. The mere fact that she performs
the clerical work of a production department is not sufficient to give
her more interests in common with those in a unit of production and
maintenance employees than with those in a unit of office clerical
employees. We shall sustain the challenge as to Bruce and direct that
her ballot not be counted.
Gladys Blendermana, Emma Boyer and Ruth Paris are classified as
clerks, and C. Schweyer as a typist. They are under the supervision
of Department Manager W. Smith. All of them, together with two
other clerks, work in the stock control office, which is located be-
tween the department manager's office and the place in which packag-
ing operations are performed. These employees spend the great ma-
jority of their time in their office; however, it appears that they occa-
sionally go into the packaging department to obtain information in
connection with their" work. Their work consists generally of making
and maintaining stock control records with respect to biological prod-
ucts. Blenderman records and posts stock and inventory data; Boyer
maintains a laboratory record book for everything but plasma, re-
cording all tests, product names, and control numbers; Paris main-
tains the file on finished stock; and Schweyer types plasma finishing
tickets for the printing and finishing departments. This work is the
same as that performed by employees in the production control de-
partment, discussed below, with respect to pharmaceutical products.
eThese forms originate with the department manager and, when signed by him, consti-
tute a recommendation for employee transfers, terminations, etc Before final action is
taken, the form must be approved by the division director, checked by tbe industrial rela-
tions division, and approved by an executive vice president. Accordingly, the stenographer
or secretary who makes out such forms possesses advance information concerning such
personnel matters.
1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The work in which these employees are engaged comes within the
scope of the following statements made in our Decision : .
The production clerical employees are concerned in varying
degrees with control records. Some do production work, others
operate in conjunction with production employees, and still others
work in physically separated offices.
Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenges as to Blenderman,
Boyer, Paris, and Schweyer, and direct that their ballots be counted.
Florence Bullington is classified as a checker. She is under the
supervision of H. Schmalbach, foreman of plasma finishing. She
prepares necessary records incidental to the packaging of blood
plasma. She has a desk which is located in the center of the depart-
ment among the production workers. On occasion, she checks the
work of the production employees to see that the products are properly
packaged. We consider Bullington a production clerk. Accordingly,
we shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot
be counted.
(b) Bacterial vaccines department
Mary Dooley is classified as a technician at the Glenolden plant.
She is under the supervision of the department manager. Her duties
consist generally of compiling, typing, and maintaining department
records and of performing various laboratory tasks. She has a desk
in the department manager's office and also performs work in a small
laboratory adjacent thereto. There- is no showing that she performs
any confidential functions relating to labor relations. Her job de-
scription shows that she performs considerable laboratory work and
that much of her clerical work consists of keeping records in con-
nection with her laboratory duties. We consider Dooley a production
clerk. Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenge- as to her and
direct that her ballot be counted. _
(c) Supply and salvage department
Ella Taylor is classified as clerk to W. Girard, the department mana-
ger, in whose office she has her desk. Her functions and duties are
substantially- similar to those of Emily Bruce, discussed above. For
the same reasons, we shall sustain the challenge as to her and direct
that her ballot not be counted.
(d) Plasma records department
Mary Dolan, Muriel Kelly, Margaret Lay, Elizabeth Duffy, Inez
Steadman, Jane McGroarty , Maria Lacy , Mary Mandzik, and Ida
Hoyt are employed as clerks in the plasma records department, which
is located in one of the numerous buildings at the - Glenolden plant.
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1585
They work under the supervision of Doris Orr, senior clerk, who is
responsible to the assistant to director of the Biological Production
Division . All these employees are engaged in compiling and main-
taining records concerning the receipt of blood from Red Cross sta-
tions, the storing of blood, the tests performed thereon, and the vari-
ous other functions performed in making up plasma pools for process-
ing. Orr, Do] an, Kelly, Lay, Duffy, Steadman , and McGroarty spend
practically all their time working at desks in an office in this building.
Hoyt and Mandzik are stationed at the receiving platform, where
they check blood as it is received from Red Cross stations. Lacy
spends a considerable portion of her time at clerical tasks in the
lyophilizing department. The work of all these employees is closely
connected with the processing of blood into plasma. We regard these
employees as clearly production clerks, and , with the exception of
Orr who is hereinafter found to be a supervisory employee ,7 we shall
overrule the challenges as to them and direct that their ballots be
counted.
Margaret Rose and Helen O'Donnell are clerks in the control office
at the Glenolden plant. They are supervised by the director of the
Biological Production Division or by an assistant of the director.
Their office- is in the same building as that of the clerks last dis-
cussed. Both are concerned generally with various control records
on biological products . Among other duties, O'Donnell assembles all
control records on each lot of biological products and posts them in a.
record book; Rose issues forms for analytical control reports up until
all tests are completed . Production workers often approach them
for information relevant to their work. Rose and O'Donnell are
production clerks within the meaning of our Decision . We shall
overrule the challenges as to them and direct that their ballots be
counted.
2. Comptroller Division
(a) Engineering office
Helen McKinney is secretary to W. Jester, Jr., manager of the
engineering , power, and service department . Her functions and du-
ties are similar to those of Emily Bruce, discussed above. For the
same reasons, we shall sustain the challenge as to her and direct
that her ballot not be counted.
(b) Printing department
The record made at the original hearing was vague as to the
clerical employees in the printing department , although it indicated
* See page 17, infra.
1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
that there were nine such employees. On the facts of that record we
included them as production clericals. The record made at the fur-
ther hearing sheds new light on the matter and indicates that there
are only four clerical employees.
Norma Lampe is one of the four. She is a stenographer to the de-
partment manager. She works in the latter's office in the printing
department. Her functions and duties are like those of Emily
Bruce, discussed above. In the light of this evidence, we shall
sustain the challenge as to her for the reasons cited in the case of
Emily Bruce and direct that her ballot not be counted.
Sophie Koshatka is a clerk in the printing department. Her prin-
cipal function is to maintain adequate stock of pharmaceutical labels.
She checks- production finishing tickets to see whether adequate stocks
of labels are available before the tickets are sent to the finishing de-
partment. She works in an office in the printing department outside
the office of the department manager. Koshatka is a production cler-
ical employee within the meaning of our Decision. We shall over-
rule the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot be-counted.
3. Control Division
(a) Analytical department
Alice Eliassen is a_typist in the analytical control laboratory, which
is discussed below in connection with the employees challenged as
professional," She is under the supervision of the chief analytical
chemist. She works at a desk in the laboratory, performing typing
and clerical duties. Her primary duty is to type analytical reports
prepared by the chemists. She also types labels and pastes them on
the samples which are tested, and maintains files of chemical stock
and analytical control cards. We find the work of the analytical
laboratory to be closely related to the Company's production proc-
esses, and that, Eliassen's work is likewise definitely related thereto.
Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct
that her ballot be counted.
Helen De Silver is a clerk in the analytical control laboratory. She
is supervised by the chief analytical chemist. Her principal duty is
to assist the senior technician in making preliminary physical tests on
compressed tablets to check hardness, thickness, and disintegration
time. In this connection she notes the results of the preliminary phys-
ical tests on analytical report forms, which are passed to the chemists
for use in the chemical tests which follow. She also maintains records
of completed tests, and wraps and packs samples of products to be
sent to the Glenolden plant for physiological assay. De Silver is
8 See page 17 , 1 nfra.
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1587
clearly a production clerical within the meaning of our Decision. We
shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot be
counted.
(b) Formula department
Myrtle Mooney, Anna Laidley, and Mary Devaney are clerks in the
formula department. They are supervised by M. Meers, the formula
department manager. They work on the sixth floor of the Philadel-
phia plant in a separate part of one large room in which clerical em-
ployees in the production control and purchasing department also
work. Mooney, Laidley, and Devaney perform various clerical duties
in connection with the issuance of formulas for production. Upon the
basis of formulas supplied by the research department, the formula
department manager and his assistant calculate the amount of material
required to meet specific production orders.' Mooney, Laidley, and
Devaney then perform tasks such as typing the formulas and the
requisition tickets which accompany the formulas, assigning labora-
tory numbers to the formulas and tickets, and registering formulas in
the register and formula number book. This work is closely connected
with that of the production control clerks. We consider the work of
these employees to be sufficiently related to the production processes
so that their work may be termed production clerical rather than
office clerical. Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenges as to
Mooney, Laidley, and Devaney, and direct that their ballots be counted.
(c) Packaging specifications department
Marion Estilow, is classified as a clerk in this department, which is
located on the sixth floor of the Philadelphia plant between the per-
sonnel department and the ointment manufacturing department.
Estilow, another clerk, the department manager, and James Miller,
who is discussed below, are the only persons in the department. Esti-
low types package specifications and delivers them to the production
departments. In addition, she inspects samples of incoming cartons
for size and workmanship, takes dictation from the department man-
ager, maintains files, and circulates new products to management and
sales departments. We consider Estilow to be a production clerk
within the meaning of our Decision. We shall overrule the challenge
as to her and direct that her ballot be counted.
James Miller is classified as a junior draftsman. He inspects in-
coming packaging supplies such as bottles, boxes, cartons, caps,"cello-
phane,,.bands, cans, ,and collapsible tubes. He makes simple mechan-
ical drawings and blueprints of packaging supplies. In addition, he
runs errands and performs odd jobs. These facts indicate that Miller
properly belongs in the production and maintenance unit. Accord-
1588 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ingly, we shall overrule the challenge as to him and direct that his
ballot be counted. -
8. Miscellaneous Division
(a) Physiological testing and insulin testing departments
Mildred Craig is clerk to W. Frankhowser, assistant to the vice
president and the department manager of the physiological testing
and insulin testing departments, in whose office at Glenolden she works.
She performs various secretarial duties for him. In addition, she
receives samples of products to be tested in the department, records
the receipt, takes the samples into the laboratory for testing, collects
the samples after testing, makes records concerning the results of the
tests, and distributes such records to various departments. Craig also
substitutes for the cashier at Glenolden in the latter's absence. These
facts indicate that Craig's principal duties are such that she is secre-
tary to the department manager. In this capacity we regard her as
an office clerical employee. Accordingly, we shall sustain the challenge
as to her and direct that her ballot not be counted.
(b) Engineering, power, and service department
Elizabeth Hughes is a stenographer to H. Lyons, the department
manager at Glenolden. Her duties are similar to those of Emily Bruce,
discussed above. For the same reason, we shall sustain the challenge
as to her and direct that her ballot not be counted.
Charles McGinnis is a clerk who works in an office with three others
outside the office of the department manager. He makes and main-
tains records pertaining to the mechanical office. He types purchase
requisitions for materials and job orders for mechanical work. In
addition to such clerical duties, he attaches code number tags to depart-
ment equipment and follows up and expedites equipment ordered for
the mechanics in the department. He has daily contact with the
mechanics. These facts indicate that McGinnis is a production clerk.
Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenge as to him and direct that
his ballot be counted.
Dorothy Slesicki works as a clerk in the cashier's office and as a
messenger. In connection with her clerical duties, she reports to the
cashier; she is responsible to the manager of the engineering, power,
and service department only insofar as her messenger duties are con-
cerned. Her messenger duties consist largely of distributing mail.
By her location in the cashier's office, Slesicki is associating with office
clerical employees. Likewise, the nature of her duties stamps her as
an office clerical employee. Accordingly, we shall sustain the challenge
as to her and direct that her ballot not be counted.
SHARP & DOHME, INC.
9. Pharmaceutical Division
1589
(a) Pharmaceutical manufacture dry department
Gladys Brader is clerk to the department manager. Her duties are
similar to those of Emily Bruce, discussed above. For the same rea-
sons, we shall sustain the challenge as to her and direct that her
ballot not be counted.
(b) Pharmaceutical manufacture wet department
Rita Quinlan is a clerk to the department manager. Her duties are
also similar to those of Emily Bruce, discussed above. For the same
reasons, we shall sustain the challenge as to her and direct that her
ballot not be counted.
Theresa Deasley is clerk to T. O'Brien, assistant department man-
ager in charge of extract and magma, in whose office she works.
She handles no confidential matters relating to labor relations. Her
work consists of typing work cards from incoming formulas, check-
ing and filing outgoing formulas, making daily records of receipt and
disbursement of alcohol, typing distillation records and interdepart-
ment correspondence, and performing messenger duties. The ma-
jority of her time is spent at her desk; however, three or four times
a day she goes into the department to check alcohol gauges or to fill
sample bottles. Deasley's duties are those of a production clerk. Ac-
cordingly, we shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that
her ballot be counted.
(c) Packaging department
Catherine Kelly is clerk to R. Abling, the department manager.
Inasmuch as her duties and functions are substantially similar to
those of Emily Bruce, we shall, for the reasons in Bruce's case, sustain
the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot not be counted.
(d) Pharmaceutical supervision department
Bettie Gloria Watson is stenographer to J. Waligora, the assist-
ant director of the Pharmaceutical Division. At the further hearing,
the Company conceded that Watson was a confidential employee and
that she should be declared ineligible, but the Independent refused so
to concede. The record shows that Watson shares an office with the
division director's secretary, who was excluded from the unit as a
confidential employee; that Watson at times substitutes in part for the
said secretary; and that Watson has access to the division director's
files. We shall sustain the challenge as to Watson for the same
1590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
reasons given in Emily Bruce's case, and direct that her ballot not be
counted.
John Turek is a clerk directly responsible to the director of the
Pharmaceutical Division. He and another employee share an office
adjacent to that of the division director. Turek compiles statistical
records of production and assists in expediting products. He spends
more than half his time in his office; the remainder of his time is
spent in production departments speaking to department managers
about expediting products. Turek is a production clerk within the
meaning of our Decision. Accordingly, we shall overrule the chal-
lenge as to him and direct that his ballot be counted.
(e) Production control department
Mary Anspach and Ralph Altenberg are classified as clerks. They
have desks in the production control office on the sixth floor of the
Philadelphia plant. As set forth above , the production control, pur-
chasing, and formula departments are located in separate sections of
one large room . Anspach and Altenberg perform the work of ex-
pediters . They spent most of their time making trips through manu-
facturing and finishing departments , where they secure from depart-
ment managers , assistant managers , or checkers the "promise dates"
on various products . They record these dates and follow up each day
on the dates given. They also make reports on the information
which they receive. Both Anspach and Altenberg are production
clerks within the meaning of our Decision . Accordingly , we shall
overrule the challenges as to them and direct that their ballots be
counted.
Dorothy Brown is a stenographer to L. Zclynski , the department
manager, in whose office she has her desk . Her duties are substan-
tially similar to those of Emily Bruce. For the same reasons, we
shall sustain the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot not be
counted.
Florence Reichert is clerk to the assistant department manager, in
whose office she has her desk. She performs various secretarial duties,
for him. Most of her time, however , is devoted to making reports on
stock items needed to complete orders. In making these reports,
Reichert obtains information from the stock card clerks outside her
office, from the expediters mentioned above, and occasionally from the
production departments by telephone . Since Reichert 's principal
duties involve production control , we consider her a production clerical
within the meaning of our Decision . We shall overrule the challenge
as to her and direct that her ballot be counted.
Willis Wirth , Margaret Fountain , Mercedith Ware, Elizabeth
Blisard, Emily Needham •mer, Catherine Taylor, Ruth Patterson, Anne
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1591
Schweikle, Richard Dinseyy, Mae Blaney, Marion Martin,, and Roberta
Gawn are clerks in the production control department. They are under
the supervision of the manager or assistant manager of pharma-
ceutical production control. In general, the above-named persons are
engaged in making and maintaining records and in other clerical work
involving scheduling and planning of production processes. Wirth
determines requirements of allocated materials and follows up the
rece,pt and use of such materials. Fountain is engaged in similar
work. Ware determines stock requirements and follows up schedules
of production. Blisard, Needhammer, Schweikle, Dinsey, and Blaney
record the receipt and delivery of material in general stock. Martin
distributes records to various departments through the Lampson Tube
System, keeps certain records, and acts as a messenger. Taylor and
Patterson maintain stock records and prepare certain reports. Gain
makes out inventory reports and checks production schedules. These
employees spend most of their time in their office, although they
occasionally go to, or communicate with, production departments to
obtain information connected with their duties. The above-named
employees are production clericals within the meaning of our Decision.
We shall overrule the challenges as to them and direct that their
ballots be counted.
Rose Nicosis is a production control department clerk who performs
her work in the pharmaceutical packaging department. There she
makes out packaging schedules, makes reports on production, and
follows up production work to determine what progress is being made.
We shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot
be counted. -
Edith Pogue is a production control department clerk who works
in the granulating and compressing department. She prepares sched-
ules of production, prepares schedules for ordering material from
chemical stock, expedites production, and delivers formulas to the
places in the department where the products •a,re manufactured.
Pogue is a_ production clerical employee within the meaning of our
Decision. We shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that
her ballot be counted.
l0.`Philadelphia Branch Division
(a) Office department
At the hearing, the Company conceded, as contended by the C. I. 0.,
that the seven challenged employees in this department are office
clerical employees, within the meaning of the Board's Decision. The
Independent would not so concede, however.
Agnes Clouser is stenographer to the Philadelphia Branch manager,
in whose office she works: She takes and transcribes his dictation,
1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintains his private file, acts as Branch cashier, types Branch house
reports, and totals and figures time cards for employees at the Branch.
Clouser is clearly an office clerical employee. As such, we shall sustain
the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot not be counted.
Clarence Thomas is a clerk to the Branch manager. He works in
the general office on the first floor of the Branch. He looks up and
applies discounts on customer orders, checks rates and routes for ship-
ments, makes up bills of lading and express receipts, applies shipping
and billing dates to orders, and handles some correspondence with
customers. We consider that Thomas' duties render him an office
r clerical employee. We shall sustain the challenge as to him and
direct that his ballot not be counted. -
•Henrietta Boldin, Helen Carroll, Jean Di Guiseppe, Anna Dunn,
and Emma Smith are clerks under the supervision of the city sales
manager. They work in the general office on the, first floor of the
Branch. All but Dunn perform typing and all are engaged in other
clerical work in connection with customers' orders. Since the work
of these employees is in the nature of office clerical work, we shall sus-
tain the challenges as to them and direct that their ballots not be
counted.
11. Purchasing Division
At the hearing, the Company conceded, as contended by the C. I. 0.
that the 10 challenged employees in this division are office clerical em-
ployees, within the meaning of the Board's Decision. -The Independent,
would not so concede.
(a) Purchasing department (Philadelphia and Glenolden)
John Novis, Claire Weinberg, Cecilia Selby, Donald James, Enid
Stammer and Amma Calvello, are clerks in the purchasing department;
Joyce Bowen is a stenographer; and Helen Ilik is a typist.° All but
Novis and Weinberg work in the large office, mentioned above, on the
sixth floor of the Philadelphia plant. Novis, Weinberg, the assistant
director, and a stenographer work in a semi-enclosed office adjacent
thereto. Novis' work consists of interpreting priority orders issued
by the government, issuing memoranda to employees regarding such
regulations, handling requisitions for allocated materials, and prepar-
ing application's to the W. P. B. for equipment. Weinberg acts as
Novis' secretary. Selby supervises the work of the purchasing clerks
in the large office and performs various clerical duties connected with
the purchase of materials. James checks typed purchase orders with
requisitions and stock cards. Stammer and Calvello check invoices
with purchase orders and receiving records. Bowen takes dictation
6 See page 18, infra, for further discussion on Ilik
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1593
from the department director and others needing a stenographer and
assists with filing. Ilik types purchase orders from cards and requisi-
tions. We consider the work of the purchasing department to be office
work and not production clerical work. Accordingly, we shall sustain
the challenges as to the above-named employees and direct that their
ballots not be counted.
Marion Bell and Kathleen O'Doh.erty are clerks in the purchasing
department at the Glenolden plant. They work in an office with an-
other clerk and the department manager. They perform clerical work
in connection with the purchase of materials. This work is similar
to that of clerical employees in the purchasing department of the
Philadelphia plant. For the same reasons, we shall sustain the chal-
lenges as to them and direct that their ballots not be counted.
(b) Receiving and salvage department
Lida Johnson is classified as a clerk in this department. However,,
according to the uncontradicted testimony of the department manager,
under whose supervision she works, she is performing the functions
of a receiver helper. She works in the receiving department on the
first floor of the Philadelphia plant. Although she performs some
typing in the receiving office in the department, most of her time is
spent in the receiving room among employees who receive inbound
shipments. Johnson's principal function is to check inbound ship-
ments, sign delivery receipts, and route shipments to the proper de-
partment. In this connection, she opens small packages and counts
the goods therein. She performs all the work of a male receiver helper
except the moving of heavy material. Johnson is a production clerical
within the meaning of our Decision. We shall overrule the challenge
as to her and direct that her ballot be counted.
Kathleen Gavin is a "typist who works in the receiving department
office, which is separated by a partition from the place where goods
are received. She is also under the supervision of the receiving and
salvage department manager. She is engaged mainly in typing re-
ceiving reports, which are forwarded to the departments for which
the materials are intended. We consider Gavin to be a production
clerical employee within the meaning of our Decision. We shall over-
rule the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot be counted.
(c) Receiving and stock department (Glenolden)
Mary Dick is a clerk in the Glenolden receiving department office,
which is separated by a partition from the place where goods are
received. She is engaged in typing receiving records for incoming
material, typing purchase orders, typing file folders, and maintaining
1594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a file of receiving records. As in the case of Gavin, we consider Dick
to be a production clerk within the meaning of our Decision. We
shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that her, ballot be
counted.
12. Sales Division
(a) Advertising department
Alvin Harn is classified as a messenger in the samples and literature
subdepartment, which is located on the fourth floor of the Philadel-
phia Branch. He works in a storeroom with a checker and packers.
As samples and literature are recei9ed, Harn stores them on shelves.
Upon requests from salesmen for literature, Harn counts the litera-
ture and ties it in preparation for mailing. He assists in packing
parcel post and express in cartons, sorts promotional mail into classes
and stamps it, and places stamped mail into mail bags for shipping.
Harn is a production clerk within the meaning of our Decision. Ac-
cordingly, we shall overrule the challenge as to him and direct that
his vote be counted.
Madeline Mangini is a clerk in the samples and literature sub-
department. She has a desk in an inclosure in the department. She
spends about 5 hours each day at her desk typing orders from doctors
and salesmen, orders for department supplies, mailing and express
stickers, and freight and express receipts. She also deducts orders
from perpetual inventory and compiles department records which are
sent to cost accounting. About 3 hours each day she is on the floor of
the department, counting and checking literature and checking stock
for inventory purposes. Mangini is a production clerk within the
meaning of our Decision. We shall overrule the challenge as to her
and direct that her ballot be counted.
14. Warehouse Division
(a) Warehouse department
Isabel Turner is a'clerk in the export section of this department,
which is located on the third floor of the Philadelphia plant. She is
under the supervision of the warehouse department manager. The
desks of Turner, the section's foreman, and a checker are in one area
of the export section; there is no partition between them and the
remainder of the section where stock is shelved. Turner types parcel
post address stickers, biological short orders and balance sheets, shelf
stock cards, and stationery and purchase requisitions. She also enters
incoming shelf stock on stock record cards, deducts accounts from
shelf stock cards as shown by orders, enters orders in a registration
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1595
book , and closes out all completed orders in the registration book.
Turner is a production clerk within the meaning of our Decision.
We shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot
be counted.
(b) Traffic and shipping department
Rodney Engstrom is a clerk in this department , which is located
on the second floor of the Philadelphia plant. Engstrom and another
employee have their desks in the department manager's office. Eng-
strom spends about 6 hours each day in the office , typing bills of
lading, express receipts and rate bills , and performing similar cleri-
cal tasks . During the remaining 2 hours he checks out shipments
of goods, runs errands, or traces shipments in various departmental
records. Engstrom is a production clerk within the meaning of our
Decision . We shall overrule the challenge as to him and direct that
his ballot be counted.
(c) Warehouse office
Marie Ricca, Amelia Scheers, and William Zimmerman are clerks,
and Doris Murta is a typist , in the warehouse office, which is located
on the third floor of the Philadelphia plant; adjacent to the stock-
room. These employees are under the supervision of the department
manager. Ricca checks customers ' orders to determine whether they
are written properly and types back orders (items not in stock) for
branches and the back order department . Scheers is engaged in keep-
ing perpetual inventory of stock on card files. Zimmerman assists
the department manager in controlling stock. Zimmerman spends
at least 40 to 50 percent of his time taking physical inventory of
stock in the stockroom. The remainder of his time is devoted to cleri-
cal duties , such as compiling reports of balance items , sulfa-drug
items used , and product breakage . Murta types various matters, such
as orders for special stock items , address stickers , packing slips, and
special telephone orders. We regard the above -named employees as
production clerks within the meaning of our Decision. Accordingly,
we shall overrule the challenges as to them and direct that their ballots
be counted.
B. Challenged as supervisory employees
Upon the testimony adduced at the original hearing, the parties
agreed that foremen, foreladies , and supervisors should be included
in the production and maintenance unit. Additional evidence was
taken at the further hearing as to the duties of certain of these em-
ployees whom the C. I. 0. challenged as supervisory employees. This
additional evidence , as noted below , indicates that some of these em-
1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees are supervisory employees within the meaning of the Board's
customary definition. On the other hand, the record, is clear that it
is the Company's general policy that no supervisory employee under
the rank of assistant department manager is.given power to make
effective recommendations affecting the status of employees under
them.
Lillian Collins and Anne Gerig are foreladies on different shifts of
the sucret department, which is located in a separate room. They
are directly responsible to the assistant director of the Pharmaceutical
Division; there is no department manager or assistant manager be-
tween them and the assistant division director, as in the case of most
of the other departments in the division. Each has about 16 subordi-
nates. They instruct new employees, lay out work, maintain supplies
for the employees, order supplies from general stock, see that work is
properly performed, keep individual production records, and total
time cards each week. Their entire time is devoted to supervisory
functions. They requisition and interview new employees, and pre-
pare termination papers. We find, upon the basis of the above facts,
that Collins and Gerig are supervisory employees within the meaning
of our customary definition. As such, we shall sustain the challenges
as to them and direct that their ballots not be counted.
Andrew Seipp is foreman in charge of the finishing section of the
sucret department, which is located in a separate room. Like Collins
and Gerig, above, Seipp is directly responsible to the assistant director
of the Pharmaceutical Division; there is no department manager or
assistant manager between them. Seipp supervises five employees in
preparing candy mixtures and processing the mixtures into sucret
lozenges. Seipp himself performs a considerable amount of the work
in connection with the department's operations. The Company's job
description of Seipp states that one of his duties is to requisition and
interview new employees. When asked whether, if satisfied with an ap-
plicant's qualifications, he recommended him for the job, Seipp testi-
fied : "Not only recommend him, I just as much as put him on." While
Seipp actually has no authority to hire, this testimony and other testi-
mony of his shows that he can effectively recommend such action. We
find, therefore, that Seipp is a supervisory employee within the mean-
ing of our customary definition. Accordingly, we shall sustain the
challenge as to him and direct that his ballot not be counted.
Harry Artz and William Jameson are classified as foremen in the
finishing section of the biological packaging department. They are
directly -responsible to G. Robinson, an assistant manager, who is in
charge of this department. The principal function of these employees
is to maintain adequate supplies and materials for the table finishers
in this department; both devote most of their time to this and related
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1597
work. According to Artz' uncontradicted testimony , he has no au-
thority over any employees within the department , with the possible
exception of one laboratory helper who is engaged in the same type of
work. Although Jameson's principal duties are similar to those of
Artz, Jameson also assists the assistant manager "on various odds and
euds," such as communicating with other departments to see if print-
ing requirements are prepared . According to Jameson , he is entrusted
with these additional details because of long service and consequent
familiarity with the work . Upon the basis of these facts , we cannot
find that Artz and Jameson are supervisory employees within the
meaning of our customary definition . Accordingly , we shall overrule
the challenges as to them and direct that their ballots be counted.
Isabel Robb is forelady in the finishing section of the biological pack-
aging department ; she is directly responsible to Assistant Manager
Robinson , who is in charge of the department . Her duties consist of
instructing table finishers in the proper methods of finishing biological
products and in reporting on their progress to the department mana-
ger. She has about 10 finishers under her supervision. With respect
to her subordinates , she denied that she had ever made any recom-
mendations regarding their status and testified , without contradiction.
that she merely reports their conduct to her superiors . When Robb
tells the department manager that a subordinate refuses to obey her
instructions , the department manager himself talks to the employee
about the matter. We find that Robb is not a supervisory employee
within the meaning of our customary definition . Accordingly, we
shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot be
counted.
Harry Schnuzlbacli is foreman of the plasma finishing section of the
biological packaging department and is responsible to the department
manager of biological packaging. He supervises 15 to 17 employees.
His testimony and the Company's job description establish that he has
authority to recommend the hiring of new employees and the discharge
of unsatisfactory employees . According to his uncontradicted testi-
mony, his recommendations are usually followed. We conclude, there-
fore, that Schmalbach is a supervisory employee within the meaning
of our customary definition . We shall sustain the challenge as to him
and direct that his ballot not be counted.
Earl Duff is classified as a foreman in the biological packaging de-
partment . His principal function is to assist the department manager
with matters such as preparing finishing schedules , following up and
expediting printing supplies . Duff considers himself "sort of liaison
man" between the department manager and the department. He
assists the assistant manager in emergencies and substitutes for such
supervisors in their absence . However, during his service of 1 year and,
609591-45-vol. 55-106
1598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 months, he has substituted for a supervisor for only about a week
and.,one . half. There is no showing that , during-the time he, performs
his regular functions , he has any supervisory authority respecting
other employees in the department . We find that Duff is not a super-
visory employee within the meaning of our customary definition. We
shall , therefore , overrule the challenge as to him and direct that his
ballot be counted. -
Otto Foster is foreman of the packers in the warehouse department;
he is responsible to the department manager. Foster supervises from
14 to 20 packers ; in addition , he keeps an inventory of supplies , super-
vises compilation of daily weight report of orders packed , and reviews
and approves all packers ' production sheets. Foster devotes most of
his time to supervisory functions . There is uncontradicted testimony
that employees have requested wage increases of Foster , that Foster has
spoken to the department manager about this, and that the employees
shortly thereafter have received increases . Foster testified that he
has reconunended transfers of subordinates to the department mana-
ger, after which such transfers have been made. We = find that Foster
is, a supervisory employee within the meaning of our customary
definition . We shall , therefore , sustain the challenge as to hint and
direct that his ballot not be counted.
Peter Wilson is foreman of the export section in the warehouse de-
partment ; he is responsible to the department manager. He supervises
10 to 12 employees in, export refinishing , stock checking , and parcel
post operations . Like Foster , discussed . above, he makes certain re-
ports and records , has an assistant , and spends most of his time in
supervision . He interviews new employees . He discusses with the
department manager the qualifications of employees who request wage
increases, and, according to Wilson, the manager gives consideration
to Wilson's opinion. We are of the opinion that Wilson's capacity
is substantially the same as Foster 's. Accordingly, we shall sustain
the challenge as to him and direct that his ballot not be counted.
Edward Gaussman is foreman of painters in the maintenance and
repair department of the Pharmaceutical Division . He supervises,
instructs , and assigns work to from two to six painters , as the occasion
requires . Gaussman himself spends nearly all of his time painting
with his subordinates . Although the Company's description of his
job stated that it is his duty to recommend terminations for unsatis-
factory workers , he testified that he had never been so instructed and
that he had never done so. His hourly wage is only a few cents higher
than that of his highest paid subordinate . We find that Gaussman's
relationship to those under him is no more than that of a journeyman
craftsman to his helpers. We shall overrule the challenge as to him
and direct that his ballot be counted.
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1599
Bertha Goldberg is forelady of the return goods section of the
salvage section of the Purchasing -Division's receiving department.
She supervises five employees, and performs considerable work her-
self. She denied that she had ever made any recommendations con-
cerning her subordinates; she testified, without contradiction, that she
merely reports any insubordination to her superior, the department
manager. Requests for wage increases by her subordinates are made
directly to the department manager. We find that Goldberg is not a
supervisory employee within the meaning of our customary definition.
We shall overrule the challenge as to her and direct that her ballot
be counted.
- Maurice Luebeck is foreman of the compressing room in the phar-
maceutical dry department of the Pharmaceutical Division. Lue-
beck supervises about 10 or 11 employees. At times, he performs the
same type of work as his subordinates. Although he testified that
he recommends discipline of his subordinates, further examination
revealed that he merely reports such incidents to the department
manager, who then takes whatever action he deems proper. Luebeck
also testified that on one occasion he had recommended a wage in-
crease; however, his testimony as to what actually occurred showed
that he merely had pointed out to the department manager that the
employee in question had not been granted an automatic increase
to which he was entitled. We find that Luebeck is not a supervisory
employee within the meaning of our customary definition. We shall
overrule the challenge as to him and direct that his ballot be counted.
Marie Schafer is forelady of the suppository section of the oint-
ment and suppository department of the Pharmaceutical Division.
She supervises six or seven employees and performs a considerable
amount of work herself. She assigns her subordinates to jobs, checks
their work, trains new employees, and keeps production records. She
denied that she makes recommendations concerning her subordinates;
she testified, without contradiction, that she merely reports upon their
work and conduct to the department manager. She receives an
hourly wage of 78 cents; her subordinates receive 58 cents. We find
that Schafer is not a supervisory employee within the meaning of
our customary definition. We shall overrule the challenge as to her
and direct that her ballot be counted.
Eugene Tice is foreman of the hydroscopic section of the biologi-
cal packaging department. He supervises the work of six to eight
employees. He assigns then to jobs, trains news employees, and
checks the employees' work. He testified, without contradiction, that
lie merely reports infractions of rules and similar matters to the de-
partment. manager ; he denied that he had ever recommended a dis-
charge, a transfer, or a pay increase. Most of his time is devoted
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to performing various tasks in the department. We find that Tice
is not a supervisory employee within the meaning of our customary
definition. We shall overrule the challenge as to him and direct that
his ballot be counted.
Nellie Nixon supervises the company-operated kitchen and lunch-
room at the Glenolden plant. She_ is responsible to K. Hugg, the
employment manager at this plant. She supervises six full- time em-
ployees and five part-time waitresses. Nixon orders food, prepares
menus, and at times acts as restaurant cashier. According to the
uncontradicted testimony of the employment manager, she does not
hire, discharge, transfer, or promote employees or recommend such
action. All these matters are handled by the employment manager.
Nixon receives 80 cents per hour; 5 cents more than her highest paid
subordinate, a clerk who checks material and helps wash dishes. We
find that Nixon is not a supervisory employee within the meaning of
our customary definition. We shall overrule the challenge as to her
and direct that her ballot be counted.
John Mulvenna is foreman of the interplant truck drivers in the
engineering, power, and service department and supervises about
eight truck drivers. He schedules, trips, assigns drivers to various
trucks and schedules, and reviews and checks time cards.' He also
interviews applicants for positions as truck drivers and makes recom-
mendations to the department manager concerning hire. We find
that Mulvenna is a supervisory employee within the meaning of our
customary definition. We shall sustain the challenge as to him and
direct that his ballot not be counted.
Edward Stenzel is classified as a supervisor (display man) in the
display department of the Sales Division. There are only three
persons in this department, namely, the department manager, Stenzel,
and a clerk. The department is located on a separate floor of the
Philadelphia Branch 10 Stenzel's work consists of assisting the de-
partment manager in the construction of advertising and promotional
displays. This involves carpentry work and painting. Stenzel o6-
casionally travels to conventions, where' he sets up and dismantles'
displays. Apart from giving occasional instructions to the one clerk
in his department, Stenzel has no supervisory authority. At the
hearing, the C. I. 0. urged that its challenge be sustained on the ad-
ditional ground that Stenzel was neither a production nor a mainte-
nance employee within the meaning of the Direction of Elections. We
find that Stenzel is not a supervisory employee. We further find that
Stenzel's interests are sufficiently related to those in the unit of produc-
tion and maintenance employees to warrant his inclusion therein rather
10 The display department was located in Philadelphia plant until June 1944, when it
Was moved to the Philadelphia Bianch.
SHARP & DOHME, INC. 1601
than in the unit of office clerical employees. Accordingly, we shall
overrule the challenge as to him and direct that his ballot be counted.
Doris Or was challenged by the C. I. 0. on the ground that she was
an office clerical employee. However, at the hearing, evidence was
adduced which shows that she has substantial supervisory authority.
the supervises the plasma records department of the Biological
Division at Glenolden, in which there are nine clerks. Orr has
interviewed job applicants, and her recommendations that they be em-
ployed have been followed by her superiors. She also has recom-
mended wage increases, and the transfer and discharge of employees.
We find that-Orris a supervisory employee within the meaning of
our customary definition. Accordingly, we shall sustain the chal-
lenge as to her and direct that her ballot not be counted.
C. Challenged as professional employees
In our Decision, we excluded "salaried professional employees" from
Group No. 4. Generally, these employees were identified as including
veterinarians and persons with advanced degrees in science or medi-
cine; as being employed in the research division where they carried
,on independent research; if not employed there, as occupying super-
visory positions; as being paid on a salary basis; and as having been
excluded from the bargaining unit of the contract between the Com-
pany and the Independent in August 1943. Judged from these stand-
ards, the seven voters discussed below were not excluded from the pro-
duction and maintenance unit as within the scope of the phrase,
"salaried professional employees."
Harry Luckings, James Farley, Robert Miller, Ko Suto, Jean Tobia,
.and Robert Greenwood are classified either as chemists or as analyt-
ical chemists and work in the analytical laboratory, a separate room
.on the ninth floor of the Philadelphia plant. They are engaged in
analyzing, testing, or assaying either raw materials or finished prod-
-ticts. While all of them have ordinary college degrees or some col-
lege training in chemistry, none has advanced degrees in science or
medicine. Their work consists largely of performing routine tests
,or assays; they -engage in practically no independent research and,
according to the testimony of the assistant director of the division of
which their department is a part, they are not qualified to do so. Al-
though they assist in training new employees within their depart-
ment, they have no supervisory authority within the meaning of the
Board's customary definition. They are paid on an hourly basis.-
They have never been classified by the Company as exempt from the
"Prior to 1944, some of them were on the semi-monthly pay roll, but their pay was
nevertheless computed upon an hourly basis.
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and, accordingly,
were not excluded as salaried professional employees from the con-
tract bargaining unit in August 1943 by agreement of the Company
and the Independent.
Marion Hemstreet, an analytical chemist, performed the same type
of work as the employees named above until about February 1944, at
which time she was transferred to the formula department. Her work
is this department consists of checking formulas after they have been
typed, checking the labels against formulas, calculating quantities of
material called for in raw formulas, and similar work. As previ-
ously stated, the formula department is located on the sixth floor of the
Philadelphia plant, in a large room with the purchasing and produc-
tion control departments. There are three other non-supervisory em-
ployees in the formula department-clerks Mooney, Laidley, and
Devaney. Although Hemstreet's work is performed mainly within
the department, on occasion she goes to various production depart-
ments to get information related to her work. Like the other em-
ployees named above, she is not engaged in independent research, has
no supervisory authority, and is paid on an hourly basis.
We find that the above-named seven employees are properly in-
cluded within Group No. 4, the production and maintenance unit.
Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenges as to them and direct
that their ballots be counted.
D. Miscellaneous challenges
Helen Rik. To summarize briefly, two persons cast challenged bal-
lots under the naive of Ilik. Inasmuch as we have found Helen Ilik
to be an office clerical employee'12 we shall sustain both challenges as
to her, and direct that neither ballot be, counted. Since Ilik's ballot
cannot affect the results of the election in the office clerical unit, we
need not determine which, if either, of the two challenged ballots was
cast by her.
John L. Murphy was challenged by the Board. When Murphy pre-
sented himself at the polls, he was informed by the observers that his
name had been checked as having voted. Murphy insisted upon vot-
ing, whereupon the Board's agent permitted him to cast a challenged
ballot. Murphy is the only person so named who is employed by the
Company. He testified, without contradiction, that he had not voted
previous to casting the challenged ballot. All three of the observers
testified at the hearing and agreed that Murphy's name had been
checked. The observers for the C. I. 0. and the Independent testified
that they had no recollection .,Of having seen Murphy at the election
12 See page 11, supra.
SHARP & DOHME , INC. 1603
prior to the time his ballot was challenged. The observer for the
Company testified that she felt sure that Murphy had not voted prior
to the challenge. Since it appears that someone voted under Murphy's
name, but for which union, if either, we do not know, we shall not rule
upon the challenge of Murphy's ballot unless it appears after counting
the ballots which we have directed to be counted that two ballots would
affect the results of the election conducted in Group No. 4.
DIRECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations--Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board,
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Sharp'& Dohme, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region shall, with respect to the election
directed and conducted among the employees in Group No. 4, the pro-
duction and maintenance unit, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations
of the Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and
Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open
and count the ballots cast by those persons listed on Appendix A, at-
taclied hereto, and shall, thereafter, prepare, and caused to be served
upon the parties, a Supplemental Tally of Ballots, embodying his
findings therein and his recommendations as to the results of the
secret ballot among the employees in that group.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National 'Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Sharp & Dohme Employees' Organi-
zation has been designated and selected by a majority of all office
clerical employees of Sharp & Dohme, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, including dispensary nurses, visiting nurses, and clerical em-
ployees in the first-aid departments of the industrial relations
division, but excluding all other employees in the industrial relations
division, confidential secretaries to supervisory employees of the rank of
division director and above, and all supervisory employees with author-
ity-to hire, promote, dischhrge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, as
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act,
Sharp & Dohme Employees' Organization is the exclusive representa-
tive of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
Mn. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Direction and Certification of Representatives.
APPENDIX A
Altenberg, Ralph -
Anspach, Mary
Artz, Harry
Bailey, Fred
Barber, Gloria
Bauer, Frank
Baxter, Albert
Beattie, J. H.
Blaney, Mae
Blenderman, Gladys
Blisard, Elizabeth
Boyer, Emma
Bullington, Florence
Callahan, Thomas
Carter, Walter
Czernik, Mary
Deasley, Theresa
De Silver, Helen
Devaney, Mary
Dick, Mary
Dinsey, Richard
Dolan, Mary
Donnelly, Stella
Dooley, Mary
Duff, Elizabeth
Eliassen, Alice
Engstrom, Rodney
Estilow, Marion
Farley, James
Fountain, Margaret
Gaun, Roberta
Gavin, Kathleen
Goldberg, Bertha
Granato, D.
Grey, Carl
Greenwood, Robert
Harn, Alvin
Heird, Allen
Hemstreet, Marion
Hoyt, Ida
Jameson, William
Johnson, Lida
Johnson, Margaret
Keeler, Reinhard
Kelly, Muriel
Klosman, Ferd.
Koshatka, Sophie
Ko Suto
Lacey, Maria
Lay, Margaret
Laidley, Anna
Luckings, Harry
Luebeck, Maurice
Mandzik, Mary
Mangini, Madeline
Martin, Marion
McGinnis, Charles
McGroarty, Jane
McMath, Eliz.
McNamara, Dorothy
Miller, Robert
Miller, James
Mooney, Myrtle
Moskowitz, Jack
Murta, Doris
Myers, Marie
Needhammer, Emily
Nicosis, Rose
SHARP & DOHME, INC.
Nixon, Nellie
O'Donnell, Helen
Orr, Raymond
Paris, Ruth
Patterson, Ruth
Pettit, Frank
Pieper, George
Pogue, Edith
Reichert, Florence
Ricca, Marie
Rich, J. Edward
Robb, Isabel
Rose, Margaret
Schafer, Marie
Scheers, Amelia
Schweikle, Anne
Schweyer, C.
Steadman, Inez
Stenzel, Edward
Taylor, Catherine
Tice, E.
Tobia, Jean
Trout, Rose
Turek, John
Turner, Isabel
Ware, Mercedith
Wetzel, Donald
Williams, Edwin
Wilson, Ethel
Wirth, Willis
Zimmerman, William
1605 '