Specialities Appliance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 181 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SPECIALITIES APPLIANCE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
FABRICATED METAL SPECIALTY WORKERS UNION No. 22561, A. F.
OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 13-R-4071.--Decided April 4,1947
Mr. Max Chill , of Chicago , Ill., for the Employer.
Daniel D. Carmell, by Messrs. Joseph E. Gubbins and Robert E.
Martin, of Chicago , Ill., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Irving D. Rosenman , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on
January 24, 1947, conducted a prehearing election, among employees
of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes
of cols^ctive bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 55 eligible
voters, and that 50 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 37
were for, and 10 were against, the Petitioner, and 3 were challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on February 14,
1947, before Robert Ackerberg, hearing officer. The hearing officer'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
Specialties Appliance Corporation, an Illinois corporation, is
engaged at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, in the manufacture, assembly,
and sale of equipment for frying and cooking foods. In 1946 the
Employer purchased for use at this plant in excess of $60,000 worth
73 N. L. R. B., No. 31.
181
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of steel, its principal raw material, of which 15 percent represented
shipments from places outside the States of Illinois. During the same
period, the Employer produced in excess of $200,000 worth of finished
products, more than 50 percent of which represented shipments outside
the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION,INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.'
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 parties generally agree that the appropriate unit for bargaining
purposes should consist of all production and maintenance employees,
including short-hour workers,2 but excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, truck drivers, and supervisory employees.3 The sole dis-
agreement between the parties relates to employees Ray Kelly and
Michael Prate, whom the Employer would exclude as supervisory
employees 4
The Employer conducts its operations on the third, fourth and
fifth floors of a building. Kelly and Prate work on the fourth floor
where the sheet-metal fabrication and welding work is performed.
R. 0. Van Fleet, an admitted supervisory employee, is in charge of the
work of all 16 employees on that floor, as well as the work of all 10 em-
ployees on the fifth floor who are engaged in assembling and preparing
for shipment largo units of equipment. While Van Fleet is assisted
by Foreman Kuszykowski, also concededly supervisory, the latter
' The United Automobile Workers, A F of L, was served with a copy of the petition and
notice of hearing, but failed to appear
2 These employees work an average of 25 hours a week, while enjoying educational bene-
fits as veterans under the G I. Bill of Rights. The parties stipulated that they are regu-
lar permanent employees
3 The election was held among employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
* At the hearing, it was stipulated that Frank Labik, a third employee, whom the Em-
ployer originally desired to exclude from the unit , was, in fact , a non-supervisory employee.
We so find and shall include him in the unit.
SPECIALITIES APPLIANCE CORPORATION 183
functions only on the fifth floor. It is apparently the position of the
Employer that Kelly and Prate aid Van Fleet in the performance of
his supervisory functions on the fourth floor.
Ray Kelly: This employee sets up and operates the punch presses
and the press brakes, devotes 90 percent of his time to manual labor,
assists in training new employees, shows the men what to do when
Van Fleet is occasionally absent,5 relays orders to about three em-
ployees, and helps the others on the floor if they have any difficulty.
His wage scale is only slightly higher than that of most employees on
this floor, and is equalled by three of them. He has no authority to
hire, discharge, or discipline employees or effectively to recommend
such action. Although in the past few years he has suggested to Van
Fleet raises for three employees, his recommendations were ineffective,
inasmuch as the raises had already been given to two of the employees
and the third employee had quit before any action was taken. On the
basis of the foregoing facts, it appears that this employee does not
possess sufficient indicia of supervisory authority to warrant his ex-
clusion from the unit. We shall include him in the unit.
Michael Prate : This individual directs about three or four men
in the assembling and cutting of parts for counter models, and reports
directly to Van Fleet. He earns less than Kelly. Apart from the
responsibility of regulating the flow of work in the counter model
section he has virtually identical duties with those of the men he
directs, and devotes 90 percent of his time to manual labor. Although
there is some evidence that Prate substituted for 1 week last year as
supervisor of the fourth floor during Van Fleet's illness, it is clear
that, in the usual course of his work, Prate has no power to hire or
discharge any employees and he has never effectively recommended
a change of status with respect to any employees. In view of the
foregoing, we believe this individual is merely an experienced worker
who functions as a-leader in his group, and that his relationship to
his fellow worker is not one of supervisor to subordinate.e Accord-
ingly, we shall include him in the appropriate unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees ° of the
Employer, including short-hour workers, but excluding office and
clerical employees, truck drivers, and supervisory employees 8 with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Van Fleet testified that he considered Kelly as his assistant on the fourth floor.
Matter of Hall Level d Manufacturing Works, 72 N L. It. B. 165.
S Including employees Kelly, Prate, and Labik.
8 This includes employees Van Fleet , Kuszykowski and Storms . The latter is admittedly
a supervisor in charge of operations on the third floor.
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that
the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, irre-
spective of the counting of the three challenged ballots.' Under these
circumstances we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Fabricated Metal Specialty Workers
Union No. 22561, A. F. of L., has been designated and selected by a
majority of all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer, including short-hour workers, but excluding office and clerical
employees , truck drivers , and supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees , or effectively recommend such action , as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining , and that pur-
suant to Section 9 (a) of the Act , the said organization is the exclusive
representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
BAlthough the record is not clear in this respect, it would appear that the challenged
ballots were those of Kelly, Prate, and Labik.