Snead & Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 11, 194455 N.L.R.B. 1206 (N.L.R.B. 1944) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation