Steel Improvement and Forge Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1183 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

STEEL IMPROVEMENT AND FORGE CO. 1183
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, Carpet,
Linoleum and Resilient Tile Layers Local Union No. 419, affiliated with American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. Spoon Tile Company, Phoenix, Arizona, is an Employer within the meaning
of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees of Spoon Tile Company in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondents have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
4. By causing and attempting to cause Spoon Tile Company, an Employer, to
discriminate against its employees, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The allegations of the complaint that Respondents, in violation of the Act, (1)
enforced closed-shop conditions over work coming within the jurisdiction of Local
419 in the Denver area; (2) enforced closed-shop conditions in their business rela-
tions with Spoon Tile; and (3) manipulated the job-referral program of Local 419 to
the detriment of the complainants here involved, have not been sustained by sub-
stantial evidence.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Steel Improvement and Forge Co. (Champion Division) and In-
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, CIO, and its Local 759,
Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC--2529. November 18, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
`Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John Vincek, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
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 Employer is an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufac-
ture of drop forgings for, primarily, the aircraft industry. The parties
are agreed as to the appropriateness of a residual unit composed of
factory clerks and expediters, but there was disagreement as to the
inclusion of timekeepers who the Employer urges are confidential
employees.
Timekeepers are hourly paid as are the plant clericals, but unlike
office clericals who are salaried. Although they do no production
114 NLRB No. 172.
1184 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work, their hours are substantially the same as all hourly paid em-
ployees, their vacation benefits are similar, and they are carried on
the factory payroll charged to sales and administration. Unlike the
plant clericals who are supervised by the plant superintendent, the
timekeepers are under the accounting supervisor. The timekeepers
have their office on the plant floor and spend most of their time either
out on the production floor or in their office; only about 10 percent of
their time is spent in the accounting office.
The timekeepers' duties include the preparation of time tickets which
show the type of work performed, the time worked, equipment used,
quantity produced, and operations number; they check the time tickets
against clock cards; and they allot the number of hours to each job.
The Employer has three pay rates applicable to its production employ-
ees-day, experimental, and piece-and the timekeepers determine the
number of hours' work of an employee chargeable to a particular pay
rate. When an employee requests that he be rung out of one type of
work, the timekeeper verifies if the employee has finished the work
and is ready to start his next job, thus determining when an employee
is rung out on one rate and assigned another rate. On occasion, time-
keepers may be required to exercise discretion in determining which
rate should be assigned to a job; such decisions are subject to review.
Timekeepers also prepare daily earnings reports and production re-
ports for the payroll department and for production control. Re-
cently, IBM machines have been installed in the timekeepers' office
and timekeepers will have the additional duty of counting actual
costs which will be a factor in determining the sale price of the
Employer's products. '
The Employer contends that the timekeepers are confidential em-
ployees because of their control over the pay of employees and because
of their knowledge of company costs. We do not agree. Although
their duties may involve matters of a confidential nature, they do not
act in a confidential capacity to a person who formulates or effectuates
the Employer's labor relations policy. They do not, therefore, meet
the Board's test.' Accordingly, the timekeepers, who are plant cleri-
cals, are included in the unit found appropriate 2
We find that all factory clericals of the Employer at its plant lo-
cated at 3685 East 78th Street, Cleveland, Ohio, including timekeep-
ers, clerks in the forge shop, storeroom, quality control, maintenance,
and die room, the expediters under the forge foreman and in the die
room, but excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors
I Minneapolis Moline Company , 85 NLRB 597.
2 See Northwest Engineering Company, 73 NLRB 40, 42; Radio Corporation of America,
96 NLRB 889; Daystrom, Inc., 101 NLRB 343, 344-, Palmer Mfg Co., 103 NLRB 336, 3,38;
Peter Kiewit Sons Company, 111 NLRB 881; Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1268.
AIELLO DAIRY FARMS CO. 1185
within ,.the -Act: constitute a unit, appropriate-, for, the- purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act,
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
-MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Aiello Dairy Farms Co ., Petitioner and Retail Food Clerks Union,
Local 1500, AFL. Case No. -RM-691. November 18, 1955.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
On October 7, 1955, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region among
the employees in the unit found appropriate. Upon completion of the
election, the parties were furnished a tally,of,ballots which showed that
of the 7 ballots cast, 6 were challenged.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director investigated the challenges and on October 20, 1955, issued
and duly served upon the parties a report on challenges. Thereafter,
on October 31, 19551 the Union filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following :
Findings -
The Employer challenged employees De Ninno, Guistiniana, and
Del Prete; the Union challenged employees Beltrone, Benemerito, and
Caiola. The Regional Director's investigation revealed that the 3
,former employees went on strike before the Decision and Direction
of Election was issued in this, proceeding and that the Employer
permanently replaced them with the latter 3 employees, challenged
by the Union.
The Union contends, principally, that the strikers were unfair
labor practice strikers because they walked out to protest the Em-
ployer's unlawful refusal to bargain with the Union. Therefore,
the Union claims, they may not be lawfully replaced and they, but not
their replacements, were eligible to vote. The Union made the dis-
charge of the strikers the subject of an unfair labor practice charge
(2-CA-4566). After investigation the Regional Director dismissed
this charge. In his report on challenges, therefore, he concluded that
I Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
114 NLRB No. 177.