Shwayder Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1079 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of SHWAYDER BROTHERS , INC., EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL FUR AND LEATHER WORKERS, LOCAL No. 96 (CIO),
PETITIONER
Case No. 7-R-2303.-Decided July 31, 1946
Mr. Lester S. Smith, of Detroit, Mich., for the Employer.
Mr. Harold L. Shapiro, of Detroit, Mich., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Detroit,
Michigan, on June 4, 1946, before Harry N. Casselman, Trial Ex-
aminer. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition.
The Trial Examiner referred the motion to the Board for ruling
thereon. For reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the motion is hereby
denied.. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Shwayder Brothers , Inc., a Colorado corporation , operates plants
at Denver, Colorado, and Ecorse, Michigan. This proceeding is con-
cerned only with the plant located at Ecorse, Michigan, which is en-
gaged in the manufacture of folding card tables and chairs. During
a recent 6-month period, the Employer received from sources outside
the State of Michigan for use at the Ecorse plant more than $26,000
worth of raw materials. During the same period, the Employer
shipped from this plant to points outside the State more than $568,000
worth of finished products.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
69 N. L . R. B., No. 129.
1079
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner, which presently represents the Employer's pro-
duction employees at the Ecorse, Michigan, plant, seeks a unit com-
posed of all office employees at that plant, including senior stenog-
raphers, the supervisor of accounts receivable department, and the
supervisor of order and billing department, but excluding the secretary
to the vice-president and the treasurer, the secretary to the personnel
manager, salesmen, salesmen-trainees, cost accountants, assistant office
manager, sales manager, officers, the supervisors of the factory pay-roll
department, tabulating department, accounts payable department, and
filing department, and all other supervisory employees. The Em-
ployer, while conceding that the requested unit, with certain exceptions
discussed hereinafter, is generally appropriate, takes the position, also
asserted in its motion to dismiss, that the same union which represents
its production employees may not represent its office employees. It
argues, in this connection, that should the Petitioner be certified as
bargaining representative of the office employees, the result would be
tantamount to the enlargement of the unit of production employees to
include office employees, despite the lack of community of interest be-
tween these groups of employees.
We find no merit in the position of the Employer. We have fre-
quently held that the same labor organization which represents an
employer's production employees may also represent its clerical em-
ployees in a separate, appropriate unit." It is also well established that
representatives may be designated by the employees in more than one
unit without thereby effecting a merger of such units.2
We come now to a discussion of the specific composition of the
unit. The parties are in dispute as to the inclusion in, or exclusion
I
See Matter of Walter Kidde cG Company, 64 N. L. R. B . 1050; Matter of Oliver Farm
Equipment Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 1078.
2 See Matter of Chris-Craft Corporattion, 66 N. L. R. B. 230.
SHWAYDER BROTHERS, INC. 1081
from, the unit of the supervisor of accounts receivable department, the
supervisor of order and billing department, and the two senior stenog-
raphers, the Employer desiring to exclude the two supervisors on the
ground that they are supervisory employees within the Board's cus-
tomary definition of that term and the senior stenographers on the
ground that they are confidential employees.
Supervisor of Accounts Receivable Department: During normal
operations, this employee supervises five or six clerks in the handling of
customers' accounts and the posting of sales to the proper ledger cards.
In addition to allocating work to these clerks, she has the power
effectively to recommend their discharge or change in status. We are
of the opinion that the supervisor of accounts receivable department is
a supervisory employee within the Board's customary definition of
that term and we shall, therefore, exclude her from the unit.
Supervisor of Order and Billing Department: The supervisor of
order and billing department supervises the handling of incoming or-
ders and invoicing after the orders are filled. She is assisted in her
work by from six to eight employees and has the power effectively to
recommend the discharge or change in status of these individuals.
Accordingly, we find that the, supervisor of order and billing depart-
ment is a. supervisory employee within the Board's customary defini-
tion of that term and we shall exclude her from the unit.
Senior Stenographers: The Employer has two employees in this
classification. They handle general correspondence under the super-
vision of the office manager. In addition to these duties, they are
required from time to time to take dictation from the vice president,
treasurer, and personnel manager when their secretaries are un-
available for that purpose; approximately 10 to 20 percent of their
working time is consumed in this function. As noted above, the Em-
ployer urges the exclusion of the senior stenographers on the ground
that they are confidential employees. We note, however, that the sec-
retary to the vice president and the treasurer, and the secretary to the
personnel manager are excluded from the unit by agreement of the
parties. Consequently, it is clear from the insubstantial amount of
time spent by the senior stenographers in working for these officials
and the fact that these officials generally rely on their own secretaries
to handle their office work that the senior stenographers do not act as
private secretaries to the afore-mentioned officers. Accordingly,
without passing upon whether or not the vice president, treasurer, or
personnel manager exercises managerial functions in the field of labor
relations by formulating, determining, and effectuating the Employ-
er's labor policies, we are satisfied that the senior stenographers are
not confidential employees. We shall include the senior stenograph-
ers in the unit.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that all office employees at the Ecorse, Michi-
gan, plant of the Employer, including senior stenographers, but ex-
cluding the secretary to the vice-president and the treasurer, the
secretary to the personnel manager, salesmen, salesmen-trainees, cost
accountants, assistant office manager, office manager, sales manager,
officers, the supervisors of accounts receivable department, order and
billing department, factory pay-roll department, tabulating depart-
ment, accounts payable department, and filing department, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate 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 Shwayder Brothers, Inc.,
Ecorse, Michigan, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as
early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of
this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
'prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by International Fur and Leather Workers,
Local No. 96 (CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.