Steelweld Equipment Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 831 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of STEELWELD EQUIPMENT COMPANY , INC., EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 9,
PETITIONER
Case No. 14-RC-3.-Decided March 19, 1948
Mr. Earl J. Anderson, of Robertson, Mo., and Mr. John C. Rappel,
Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer.
Messrs. Cody Quinn and Kenneth Whitson, of St. Louis, Mo., for the
Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at St. Louis,
Missouri, on October 31, 1947, before Glenn L. Moller, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affirmed?
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Steelweld Equipment Company, Inc., is a Missouri corporation en-
gaged in the fabrication of steel products, with a plant and office at
Lambert Field, near St. Louis, Missouri. The Employer annually uses
raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 75
percent is received from points outside the State. The Employer
annually produces finished products valued in excess of $500,000, ap-
proximately 50 percent of which is shipped to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
1 The hearing officer properly refused to permit the Employer to inquire into the showing
of interest made by the Petitioner. This is not a matter for direct or collateral attack
at a hearink . Matter of Mascot Stove Co, 75 N L R B. 427; and Matter of Southern
Advance Bag and Paper Co., 75 N. L. R. B. 614
76 N. L. R. B., No. 116.
831
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
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 exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer, excluding office clerical employees and
supervisors. The Employer contends that a unit of production work-
ers would be appropriate, but objects to the inclusion of maintenance
employees in the unit. The parties agree that engineering and pro-
curement employees should be excluded from the appropriate unit.
The Petitioner and the Employer disagree as to the status of working
foremen.
There are eight maintenance employees, all under one of the work-
ing foremen. Some unload raw materials from trucks ; others are
employed in the stock and tool rooms; still others repair and main-
tain plant equipment. Three other maintenance employees act as
porters and do clean-up work. In view of the close relationship be-
tween the work of the maintenance and of the production workers
and the community of interest of both classes of employees, and in-
asmuch as no cogent reason appears for their separation, we shall
follow` our usual policy of including the maintenance employees with
the production workers in one bargaining unit.2
The parties disagree with respect to the status of William Ceplecha,
Harry Jones, Frank Bahr, and Frank Hopkins, who, classified as
working foremen, work under the supervision of Robert Brennecke,
the head of the production and maintenance department. The Peti-
tioner concedes that Brennecke is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act, but contends that the duties of the four working foremen
do not bring them within the statutory definition of supervisor.3
2 Matter of American Twine and Fabric Corp , 70 N L R. B 283 ; and Matter of Fogel
Refrigerator Co , 61 N L R B 692
8 Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended , defines the term "supervisor " as "any individual
having authority , in the interest of the employer , to hire , transfer , suspend, lay-off, recall,
promote , discharge , assign, reward , or discipline other employees , or responsibly to direct
then , or to adjust their grievances , or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection
with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical
nature, but requires the use of independent judgment "
STEELWELD EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 833
The record indicates that Ceplecha, Jones, Bahr and Hopkins spend
the major, or a substantial, portion of their time in manual work.4
They are paid salaries which are substantially higher than the nor-
mal5 earnings of their subordinates. They requisition materials for,
assign work to, and are responsible for the output of, groups of ap-
proximately 8 to 30 employees. They select employees to perform
overtime work, direct and criticize the work of their subordinates
and report to Brennecke on their performance. Except for these
working foremen, there is no intermediate supervision between Bren-
necke and the 75 to 80 production and maintenance employees at the
plant.
Under these circumstances and on the entire record in the case, we
are of the opinion that working foremen at the Employer's plant are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act and must, therefore, be
excluded from the unit.a
It appears that three maintenance employees at the plant combine
with their maintenance duties service as night watchmen. The record
is not entirely clear as to what proportion of their time is spent in such
service. If they spend more than 50 percent of their working time as
night watchmen, we will consider that they are "employed as a guard"
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the amended Act, and
they will be excluded from the milt; otherwise, they will be regarded
as maintenance employees and will be included .7
We, accordingly, find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding office
clerical, engineering, and procurement employees, guards, working
foremen, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining tivith Steelweld Equipment Com-
pany, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, 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 Fourteenth Region, and subject to Sections
203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
4 Bahr spends 90 percent of his time in manual work , the rest engage in manual work
in vaiymg degrees
5 When the subordinates work overtime their earnings may exceed those of the working
foremen . who are not paid for overtime.
Matter of Dayton, Pt ace & Co ., 73 N L R. B. 149
7 Matter of Radio Corporation of America , 76 N. L. R B. 826
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
latibns-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction , including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, 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 , and also ex-
cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists , District No. 9, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and MURDOCK , dissenting in part :
We are unable to agree with the action of our colleagues to ant,
extent that they have included in a production and maintenance unit.,
three employees who serve both as maintenance employees and night
watchmen , provided that not more than 50 percent of their time ,,
spent in the latter activity . Our reasons for concluding that such
action is not consistent with the Congressional intent in Section 9 (b)
(3) of the Act are set forth more fully in Matter of Radio Corporation
of America , 76 N. L . R. B. 826.
Having in this case and in the Radio Corporation case registerea
our dissent from the action of our colleagues in treating part-time
watchmen as not covered by the terms of Section 9 (b) (3), we shall
in future cases recognize the majority decisions therein as the rule
to be followed and shall not continue to note a dissent.