Standard Brands Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1349 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED 1349
other employees in it. Most of his work is manual . At present the
other employee in the department has a higher hourly pay rate and
more experience than the job change crew leader. The job change
crew leader receives detailed orders from the production superinten-
dent, which he transmits to the other employee in the department. He
has no authority to take action, . or make recommendations, affecting
the status of other employees. We find that he is not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act."
The skills, interests, and working conditions of the foregoing three
employees are substantially similar to those of the employees in the
production and maintenance unit. However, as the representative of
the production and maintenance unit, from which they were excluded,
does not desire to represent them, and no other union except the
Petitioner seeks to represent them, we find, that a unit limited to the
quality inspector, working foreman in the mould shop, and the job
change crew leader at the Employer's plant at Guaynabo, Puerto Rico,
is an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.9
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
S The Fli-Back Company, et al., 85 NLRB 959.
a Jordan Marsh Company, 85 NLRB 1503.
STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED , AND ITS SUBSIDIARY , THE TLEISOH-
MANN DISTILLING CORPORATION and BREWERY WORKERS ' INTER-
NATIONAL UNION , LOCAL No. 42, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
2-RC-448. December 03, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman A. Cole, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
101 NLRB No. 216.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree to the establishment of two bargaining units,
one of office clerical employees and one of technical employees; they
also agree to a self-determination election in a separate voting group
of professional employees to determine whether they wish to be rep-
resented separately or to be joined with the technical employees. The
only unit issues presented arise from the Employer's request to ex-
clude from any of the units eventually established (1) four employees
on the staff of the technical director of Fleischmann Distilling Cor-
poration, (2) seven employees who the Employer contends are super-
visors, and (3) seven others who it contends are confidential employees.
The Fleischmann Distilling Corporation is a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of Standard Brands, Incorporated. Both companies have,
their principal office in New York City. Standard operates a number
of plants throughout the United States, including one at Peekskill,
New York, which is the subject of this proceeding; Fleischmann
operates two plants, one at Peekskill and another at Queensboro,
Kentucky. The Peekskill operations of the two companies are con-
siderably integrated in many respects, and the parties, therefore,
properly agree that the scope of the units which may result from this
proceeding shall embrace the related categories of employees of both
companies located at Peekskill.
The Employer contends that certain employees on the staff of the
technical director of Fleischmann, located at Peekskill, have interests
apart from those of all other Peekskill employees and should there-
fore be excluded from any unit sought by the Petitioner in this pro-
ceeding. The technical director, Wilbur Gouvia, is in charge of
quality control, quality improvement, and research for both the
Peekskill and Queensboro plants of the Fleischmann Company. He
reports directly to the vice president or president at New York. The
disputed employees on his staff are a professional chemist, a drafts-
man, and two secretaries.
Except for the chemist, who spends about 10 percent of her time
away from Peekskill, all of these employees work there and are on
the Peekskill payroll, and all are supervised directly by Gouvia, or
by a chief chemist, both of whose offices are at Peekskill. The chemist
and the draftsman work on problems involving the operations of both
Fleischmann plants, and the secretaries keep files and office corre-
spondence covering the company-wide responsibilities of the technical
director.
Concededly, the functions of this group thus stand apart from the
direct operational duties of the bulk of the employees here involved.
STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED 1351
We do not believe, however, that this difference in the ultimate ob-
jective of their work so materially affects their interests in working
conditions as to preclude their inclusion in the same bargaining units
with the other Peekskill employees. Those incidents of their employ-
ment which they have in common with all employees in the same
classifications at the single location, plus the fact that there would be
less reason to join this staff with employees of a distant plant, amply
warrant their inclusion in the units or voting groups set forth below.,
Accordingly, the various employees on the staff of the technical di-
rector are hereby included in the various units found appropriate
herein and in which they would otherwise fall.
Supervisors and Alleged Supervisors
The Employer contends that 5 clerical employees, 3 called super-
visors and 2 called assistant supervisors, who work in an accounting
office are supervisors as defined in the Act and should therefore be
excluded from the clerical unit. This office, in charge of the plant
accountant and the assistant plant accountant, both admitted super-
visors, has about 35 clerical employees. The supervisor-cost account-
ing (Walsh) has 6 employees under him. The supervisor-general
accounting (Napier) has 10 employees; and the supervisor-manufac-
turing accounting (Hamilton) has 11 persons. The testimony as to
the duties of these 3 employees varies in minor detail, but in general is
to the effect that they hold substantially the same positions. They
assign work to the clerks under them, shift the various employees to
different duties as the need arises, review their work, train new em-
ployees, and report upon the adequacy of their performance and rec-
ommend promotions. Each of them also devotes a substantial part
of his time working on company records like the rank-and-file clerks.
They also decide whether overtime work is necessary, assign such
work, recommend whether additional employees should be hired, and
arrange vacation schedules. They have no power to hire or discharge
employees, but the assistant plant accountant testified that in these
respects he would rely largely upon their recommendations. They are
paid about 30 percent more than the other employees in the office.
On these facts, and on the record as a whole, we find that these 3
employees are supervisors as defined in the Act, and we shall there-
fore exclude them from the clerical unit.
3 The parties agreed to exclude from any unit two other small groups , and a chemist, at
Peekskill , whose work relates to other locations . These are the drafting department of the
central engineering department of Standard Brands and the process development depart-
ment of the Flelschmann Manufacturing Division of Standard Brands. As the record
shows that these other employees are directly supervised by the main office in New York
on a day-to -day basis, and are on the New York payroll, we see no reason for disturbing
this stipulation.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The assistant supervisor-general accounting (King) and the assist-
ant supervisor-manufacturing accounting (Clune) assist their re-
spective supervisors in training new employees, assign work, and check
the results of some of the employees in their sections of the general
office. They have no power to hire or discharge any employees. Al-
though the supervisors consult these assistants as to the progress of
any clerks and the flow of work, it does not appear that the assistants
have any power to make effective recommendations respecting the
status of others. Clune once reported that a clerk was incompetent but
his report was ignored. The assistant plant accountant testified that
these assistants have the same authority as the supervisors in the lat-
ters' absence, but he added that it is he who takes over any department
when a supervisor is absent. On these facts, and on the entire record,
we find that the two assistant supervisors direct the work of clerks
only in a routine manner and that they have no true attributes of
supervisory authority. Accordingly, we find that they are not super-
visors as defined in the Act, and we shall therefore include them in
the clerical unit.
A senior baker (Bleakley) works in the Peekskill baking laboratory
with another senior baker and two technicians, one part time and one
full time. The group makes routine tests of yeast and bread dough
and some new or experimental tests. Bleakley has been with the
Employer for 30 years, is the most experienced person in this labora-
tory, and therefore performs the newer or more difficult tests. His
longevity is a factor in his receiving 20 percent more salary than the
other senior baker. He spends 90 percent of his time making tests
and the remainder writing reports on the laboratory activity. He
has no power to hire or discharge any employees. Although the plant
manager said that he would follow any recommendations Bleakley
might make on promotions or raises, he added that over the years no
occasion had arisen for Bleakley to make any recommendations 2
In view of his failure over a period of years to make recommendations
and in the absence of any evidence that Bleakley was ever told that
he had authority effectively to recommend changes in status for other
employees, we find that Bleakley does not in fact have such authority.
As to overtime work and time off, he clears with Weil, the supervisor
of laboratories. It thus appears that Bleakley's authority to "pass
on" the work of the other employees reflects only the fact that he is
the most experienced worker in the laboratory. In these circum-
stances, we find that he is not a supervisor as defined in the Act, and
we shall therefore include him in the voting group of technical
employees.
2 We attach no significance to the fact that on one occasion Bleakley asked that a girl
be removed from the laboratory because she had developed a sensitivity to flour.
STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED 1353
The foreman-material handling (Lough) works in the shipping
department with a crew of 7 to 10 laborers , one being gang leader,
and is in charge of receiving raw materials and receiving , storing, and
shipping finished products. Except in the case of rank insubordina-
tion, he has no power directly to discharge or hire employees, but can
effectively recommend such action . One of his crew men was recently
transferred following Lough's report that he was unsatisfactory.
Lough is generally responsible to see that the crew works steadily and
spends most of his time directing the crew and writing reports. He
does no manual work. We find on these facts that Lough is a super-
visor at least to the extent that he responsibly directs the work of
the shipping crew. We shall, therefore, exclude him from the clerical
unit.
The chief traffic clerk (Squires) is stationed in the office with five
girls who do desk work, such as preparing bills and orders; the traffic
manager is in charge of all six . Squires collates the work of the girls
and routes it about. He also deals with carriers by phone and often
goes into the plant to see that the drivers properly sign bills of lading.
He has no power to hire, discharge, or discipline the girls, and
although he said that he had been told-indirectly-that he could
report incompetence, he had never done so. On one occasion he urged
the traffic manager to promote one of the five girls instead of bringing
an outsider to replace an employee who had quit, and on another he
recommended that a girl with less seniority be promoted because
another girl had declined advancement. In each instance these pro-
motions followed the established office policy of promotion according
to seniority and, therefore, are not persuasive evidence of Squires'
authority to make effective recommendations. We conclude that his
authority is limited to directing the work of the girls in a routine
manner, and we therefore find that he is not a supervisor as defined
in the Act. We shall include him in the clerical unit.
The supervisor of rectification, bottling, and shipping (Jones)
schedules the continuing correlation between sales requirements and
production plans of the Fleischmann company. He works in close
cooperation with Mr. Fleischmann, a vice president, and with the
plant superintendent and the assistant superintendent . On the basis
of his calculations , he makes recommendations on how many produc-
tion lines should be operated, whether or not the employees should
work 6 days in any particular week, and how many employees should
be used from time to time. The record indicates that he keeps abreast
of production by personal contact with the various supervisors, who
report to him, rather than by direct association with the production
employees . He testified without contradiction that on 10 occasions
he had recommended promotions for other employees , and 3 times
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'effectively recommended dismissals. It is clear from the character of
Jones' duties and responsibilities that he is essentially a managerial
employee .3 Accordingly, we find that his interests are different from
those of the rank-and-file workers and we shall therefore exclude him.
The Alleged Confidential Employees
Veronica McGuirk is secretary to the office manager of Standard
Brands. Her desk is outside of his office and she sometimes does steno-
graphic work for other supervisors. In his office, the office manager
keeps personnel and salary records, and correspondence on grievances
relating to the office clerks. Aside from generalities in conclusionary
language, the only evidence supporting the Employer's contentions
that the office manager participates in the formulation of company-
wide labor relations policies is that he supplies factual data as to his
office in connection with contract negotiations. On this limited evi-
dence we find that McGuirk is not a confidential employee.
M. Travis is secretary to Mr. Henry, the staff assistant to the plant
manager of Standard Brands. By stipulation the parties have ex-
cluded as confidential employees the secretaries of the plant manager
and of the assistant plant manager, both of whom are above the staff
assistant in managerial authority. Henry is an experienced traffic
man who also handles some correspondence for the manager with the
Company's central office. His files have nothing on labor relations
matters, but some of the plant manager's files are located in Henry's
office. Travis substitutes for the secretaries of the two managers in
their absence and on occasion does overflow work for them. The
record does not show to what extent these two officials formulate labor
relations policies nor how frequently Travis handles their work. We
believe this evidence insufficient to warrant a finding that Travis is a
confidential employee within the Board's usual definition of the term.
We shall therefore include her in the clerical unit.
M. Diana is secretary to the supervisor of laboratories of Standard
Brands, who is in charge of 25 employees at Peekskill and of an un-
specified number of laboratory employees at other locations. The
request for exclusion of Diana rests primarily on the assertion that in
the event the laboratory employees select a union, their supervisor will
have to deal with it. The record does not otherwise indicate that he
has authority to formulate labor relations policies. Indeed, the plant
manager, speaking of this office particularly, said that the only real
responsibility for contract negotiations rests in the plant manager.
Again, with respect to this employee, the Company relies on general
testimony given in conclusory language. We find that Diana is not
a confidential employee.
2 Palace Laundry Dry Cleaning Corp. , 75 NLRB 320.
STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED 1355
Theresa Dengler is secretary to Riconda, the plant engineer. She
works next to 2 draftsmen and her desk is outside Riconda's office.
Riconda is in charge of the power and mechanical department and
of all engineering functions. He handles grievances for the employees
under his immediate supervision and maintains pertinent files in his
office. He is consulted at times of contract negotiations as to how cer-
tain provisions may affect his section. In one particular contract
negotiation, during which from 15 to 20 conferences were held, he was
present at only 1 or 2 of the meetings. Riconda's participation in
labor relations matters, like that of the other supervisors whose secre-
taries are here being considered, is essentially limited to furnishing
factual data respecting his immediate responsibilities. As the Board
has held, such activities are not equivalent to assisting in the formula-
tion of company-wide labor relations policies .4 Accordingly, as
Riconda does not engage in such activities, we find that his secretary
is not a confidential employee.
Althea Snowden is secretary to the plant superintendent of Standard
Brands, to whom the five department heads of the manufacturing op-
erations report. In his office are located all personnel and grievance
records of the departments, but all grievances are handled by the de-
partment heads and reach the plant superintendent only on occasion.
One of the department heads, Klein, shares her office. Again, the
plant superintendent participates in labor relations matters only to the
extent that he is consulted on problems affecting his operation but does
not normally attend bargaining conferences. As neither he nor Klein
formulates labor relations policies for the Company, we find that
Snowden is not a confidential employee.
Barbara Everett is secretary to Andrews, the assistant plant manager
of Fleischmann Distilling Corporation, and shares an office with him.
Andrews helps the plant manager, substitutes for him in his absence,
and generally "gets things done." The heads of two departments-
distilling and warehousing-report to him, and he considers grievances
which these department heads cannot settle. Like other managers in
charge of plant operations, he is consulted on labor contract proposals
which concern his area of responsibility, but the record clearly shows
that his participation in negotiations is limited to informal conferences
among management representatives where he merely presents factual
data. No labor matter, relating either to contracts or grievances,
reached a written stage in his office during the 9 months preceding the
hearing. Everett "might" also substitute for the secretary of the
plant manager and for the secretary of the vice president whose office
adjoins that of Andrews and who administers the union contracts of
the Fleischmann company. On these facts we find that Everett is
A Bail Brothers Company , Inc., 87 NLRB 34.
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not a confidential employee and we shall include her in the clerical
unit.
P. Morton is secretary for Gouvia, the technical director of the
Fleischmann Distilling Corporation. As set forth above, Gouvia is
in charge of quality control and research work for that company. In
his office he maintains file cards on salaried employees (including
job applications), copies of collective bargaining agreements in force,
and some records on grievances. With respect to company-wide mat-
ters or contract negotiations, the record indicates that he is consulted
primarily on technical problems. His activities, therefore, affect the
working conditions of employees only indirectly, as major decisions
might require curtailment or expansion of the general plant operations.
It is clear that Gouvia does not participate in forming general company
policies on labor matters. We therefore find that his secretary is not
a confidential employee.
In accordance with the foregoing determinations, and consistent
with the agreement of the parties, we find that all office and clerical
employees of Standard Brands, Incorporated, and of Fleischmann
Distilling Corporation, at their Charles Point, Peekskill, New York,
plants, including office maintenance and kitchen employees, the secre-
taries on the staff of the technical director of the Fleischmann Distill-
ing Corporation,5 the assistant supervisor-general accounting, the as-
sistant supervisor-manufacturing accounting, the chief traffic clerk,
the secretaries of the office manager, of the staff assistant to the plant
manager, of the supervisor of laboratories, of the plant engineer, and
of the plant superintendent, all of Standard Brands, Incorporated,
and the secretaries of the assistant plant manager and of the technical
director, both of the Fleischmann Distilling Corporation, but exclud-
ing all technical and professional employees, all confidential employ-
ees, guards, watchmen, the nurse, the supervisor-cost accounting, the
supervisor-general accounting, the supervisor-manufacturing account-
ing, the foreman-material handling, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
We shall also direct separate elections in the following voting
groups:
(a) All technical employees of Standard Brands, Incorporated,
and of Fleischmann Distilling Corporation at their Charles Point,
Peekskill, New York, plants, including the technician on the staff
of the technical director of Fleischmann Distilling Corporation ,e the
senior baker, and junior chemists,7 but excluding all other office and
5 Einters and Morton.
Cunningham.,
T Excluding , by stipulation of the parties, Pearl Prine , Robert Dean , and Thomas
Fitzgerald , who are classified junior chemists but are in fact professional employees.
HADDON BINDERY, INCORPORATED 1357
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, the
nurse, the supervisor of rectification, bottling, and shipping, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All professional employees 8 of Standard Brands, Incorporated,
and of Fleischmann Distilling Corporation, at their Charles Point,
Peekskill, New York, plants, including the chemist 9 on the staff of the
technical director of Fleischmann Distilling Corporation, but exclud-
ing all other employees, guards, watchmen, the nurse, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
The employees in the professional voting group (b) will be asked
two questions on their ballot. (1) Do you wish the professional
employees to be included in the same unit with the Employer's techni-
cal employees? (2) Do you wish to be represented for purposes of
collective bargaining by the Petitioner? If a majority of the profes-
sional employees vote "yes" to the first question, indicating their wish
to be included in the same unit with the technical employees, they will
be so included. Their votes on the second question will then be
counted together with the votes of the technical voting group (a),
to decide whether or not they wish to be represented by the Petitioner,
and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner in
the event a majority of the employees in both voting groups vote for
the Petitioner, in which case the Board finds that the employees in
voting groups (a) and (b) together constitute an appropriate unit.
If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional employees in
voting group (b) vote against inclusion in the technical unit, they
will not be included with the technical employees and their votes on
the second question will then be counted to decide whether or not they
wish to be represented by the Petitioner in a separate professional
unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Including Pearl Prine, Robert Dean , and Thomas Fitzgerald.
6 Michalko.
HADDON BINDERY, INCORPORATED and UNITED BOOK BINDING AND AL-
LIED WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 660, RETAIL WHOLESALE AND DEPART-
MENT STORE UNION, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-I?C-1719.
December 23, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition dulyfiled-under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene M. Levine, hearing
101 NLRB No. 208.