Snead & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 1206 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of SNEAD & COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR
Case No . 5-R-1505 .-Decided April 11, 1944
Shackelford d Robertson by Mr. Virginius R. Shackelford, of
Orange, Va., for the Company.
Mr. J. R . Rider, of Richmond , Va., for the Union.
Miss Kate Wallach , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by the American Federation of Labor,
'herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Snead &
Company, Orange, Virginia, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice before George L. Weasler, Trial Examiner. Said hearing
was held at Orange, Virginia, on March 9, 1944. The Company and
the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exam-
iner 's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to
file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Snead & Company is a New Jersey' corporation having its principal
office at Jersey City, New Jersey, and its principal place of business
at Orange, Virginia, where it manufactures and sells tanks and ducts
for airplanes and "V" steel trestles. During the year 1943, the Com-
pany purchased raw materials valued at approximately $1,000,000,
55 N. L. R. B., No. 218.
1206
SNEAD & COMPANY 1207
all of which were shipped to its plant at Orange, Virginia, from points
outside the State of Virginia. During the same period the Company
sold finished products valued in excess of $2,500,000, all of which
were shipped from the plant to points outside the State of Virginia.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the'
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees until the Union
has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.,.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all production and maintenance employees,
including inspectors, tool crib employees, guards, and subforemen,
but excluding clerical employees (including shipping and storeroom
clerks) and all supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate unit.
The Company would exclude inspectors, all tool crib employees,
guards, and subforemen from the unit.
The inspectors are charged with examining the work performed by
the production employees; they either pass the material on for Navy
inspection or have necessary repairs made ; they are in no way con-
cerned with the individual workers insofar as the recommendation
of disciplinary action is concerned in the event that their examination
discloses defective work. Since their duties bring them in close con-
tact with the production employees and since their interests are similar,
we shall include the inspectors in the appropriate unit.2
The tool crib department is a subdivision of the machine shop. The
employee in charge of the tool crib has authority to recommend dis-
i The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 333 authorization cards, all of
which bore apparently genuine oiiginal signatures ; that the names of the persons appearing
on the cards were listed on the Company's pay roll of February 12, 1944, which contained
the names of 549 employees in the appropriate unit ; and that the cards were all dated
February 1944
2 Republic Aviation, 51 N. L. R. B. 1287 ; Laister Kaufmann, 52 N. L. R. B. 155.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charges, the parties are in agreement that he should be excluded as a
supervisory employee. The Union would include the tool crib helpers,
whereas the Company would exclude them as clerical employees.
The record discloses that the helpers are engaged in keeping records
of outgoing and incoming tools part of the time, the balance of their
time being spent in the repair of tools. In view of their maintenance
duties and close association with production work, we find that the
tool crib helpers are more properly included within the unit; we shall
therefore include them.
The supervisory force of the Company, as shown on the job classi-
fication list, submitted at the hearing before the Trial Examiner, con-
sists of 17 foremen and about 22 subforemen; the latter are also referred
to in the record as leadmen, gang bosses, or assistant foremen. The
subforemen supervise from 6 to 45 employees, depending upon the
size of their respective departments.3 While some of the subforemen
are engaged up to 50 percent of their time in production, others con-
fine their activities to supervision. The subforemen receive from 10
to 20 percent higher wages than do the employees tinder their super-
vision. They attend supervisory meetings of their own, as do the fore-
men in their own group. Whereas the record is not clear as to whether
the subforemen have authority to recommend discharges,' Harper, a
subforeman called as a witness by the Union, testified without contra-
diction that he recommends promotions and pay raises, and fills out
Corms for that purpose, which he passes on to the foreman. He also
reports poor work in order that the foreman may take disciplinary
action. The Company contends that the subforemen are supervisors
and should be excluded from the unit The Union would include the
subforemen. We are of the opinion that the exercise of the functions
outlined above brings the subforemen within our customary definition
of supervisory employees; we therefore shall exclude them from the
unit.
The Company conducts a welding school for prospective welders in
its plant. While the student welders receive compensation from the
Company during their training period, they are, according to Army
and Navy orders, not permitted to perform any work in production
until their courses are completed and they have passed a special test.
Since employment with the Company depends upon these contin-
gencies, it is apparent that during the training period the student
welders do not have interests in common with the regular employees of
3
As stated above, there are about 550 employees ill the appropriate unit, see footnote 1
supra
4 President MacDonald testified that the gang bosses have the right to hire and fire ;
Subioreman Harper answered in the negative the question whether anybody had ever told
him that he had the right to iecommend the dischaige of an employee Subforeman Jones
testified that he had never been informed that during the temporary absence of his toreman
he could send an employee who was not doing his job to the personnel office.
SNEAD & COMPANY 1209
the Company, and since they do not perform actual production work
until they have passed the test, we shall exclude them from the unit-5
The guards employed by the Company are militarized. The Union
seeks to include them in, whereas, the Company would exclude them
from the unit. In accordance with our usual practice we shall exclude
them because of their militarized status.6
We find that all production and maintenance employees, including
tool crib helpers and inspectors, but excluding clerical employees (in-
eluding shipping and storeroom clerks), student welders, guards, the
chief inspector, the employee in charge of the tool crib, subforemen,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, 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.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Snead & Company,
Orange, Virginia, 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 Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Di-
rection, including employees who did not work during the said pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and
6 Consolidated Aircraft Corp, 47 N. L. R B 30, 33; see also Consolidated Vultee Aircraft
Corp, 54 N L R. B 103.
Matter of Dravo Corp , 52 N. L R B 322
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 the American Federa-
tion of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.