Stein, Hall and Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1078 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1078 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of Automatic within the
meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section-2(6) and (7) of the Act?
4. The following employees of Automatic Metal Products Corpora-
tion at its New York,, New York, plant, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees including shipping, die,
tool, and screw-machine operators, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.8
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7In view of our determination herein, we need not consider the Petitioner' s other
objections to the contract.
s The unit finding conforms to a stipulation of the parties.
Stein, Hall and Company, Inc.' and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen , and Helpers of
America, Local Union No. 71, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-1317.
March 10, 1960
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 Jerold B. Sindler, 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning.]
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 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. Except as indicated below, there is no dispute as to the ap-
propriateness of the production and maintenance unit requested by
the Petitioner. The Petitioner contends that the Employer' s six lead-
men should be excluded from the unit because they are supervisors;
the Employer contends that they are not supervisors and should be
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
126 NLRB No. 127.
STEIN, HALL AND COMPANY, INC., - - - 1079
included. Leadmen direct crews of from four to' nine employees
pursuant to detailed work instructions given to the leadman by the
plant manager or his assistant. The only function of the leadman is
to divide the work of a particular job among his crew, and to transmit
orders from management to his crew.. It does not appear that the
work of the leadmen involves the use of independent judgment or is
other than routine in nature. The leadmen do not have authority to
hire, discharge, discipline, increase wages, promote, give time off
work, adjust grievances, lay off or recall, or to make any other decision
regarding pay or job status. Nor do they have authority to make any
effective recommendations with respect to any personnel action. Con-
sequently, we find that the leadmen are not supervisors and include
them in the unit. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 122 NLRB 738;
C. F. Baker & Co., Inc., 122 NLRB 316.
The Employer contends that four employees, classified by the Em-
ployer as plant clericals, should be included in the unit; the Petitioner
contends that they should be excluded. The clerical employees work
on inventory records, payroll records, correspondence, bills of lading,
"receiving" reports, and records of plant operation. They work
within an office approximately 90 percent of the time. During the
balance of their work time, they pick up reports in the plant and
shipping area. They have no contact with production and main-
tenance employees. The four clerks work under the supervision of
the plant office manager. They have the same hours, fringe benefits,
and rate for overtime as plant employees; however, they are salaried,
while production and maintenance employees are paid on an hourly
basis. As the interests and work of these employees are substantially
different from those of the production and maintenance employees,
and are similar to office clerical employees, we exclude them from the
unit as office clericals. Mead-Atlanta Paper Company, 123 NLRB
306; Atomic Power Equipment Department of General Electric Com-
pany, 118 NLRB 456, 460.
The Employer contends that six laboratory control analysts should
be included in the unit; the Petitioner contends that they should be
excluded. The laboratory control analysts draw sample batches of
chemicals in process, run laboratory tests, and report findings to their
supervisor. There is no educational requirement for their positions;
the Employer trains each such employee for his specific job. It is
not shown that the tests are other than routine in nature or that these
employees exercise independent judgment in the course of their duties.
They have no supervisory function. We find that the laboratory con-
trol analysts are not technical employees or supervisors. Accordingly,
they are included in the unit. Litton Industries of Maryland, Incor-
porated, 125 NLRB 722; Augusta Chemical Co., 124 NLRB 1021.
1080 DECISIQNS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties stipulated that the office receptionist should be excluded
from the unit as a confidential employee . Accordingly, we shall ex-
clude her from the unit.
It was also stipulated that the following persons are supervisors as
defined in the Act : David E. Truax , Anthony Floresta , Armond P.
Coppola, Joseph C. Montagnino , Claude High, Norman Nuttal, Jack
Wathey, John Rankin, and Jim Owens . Consequently, they are ex-
cluded from the unit.
Accordingly , we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the. Act :
All production and maintenance employees, of Stein , Hall and
Company, Inc., at its Charlotte , North Carolina , plant, including
platform and warehouse employees , leadmen, and laboratory control
analysts, but excluding office clerical , confidential , and professional
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text. of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Marcus Trucking Company, Inc. and Dairy Transportation
Drivers, Helpers & Terminal Employees , Local 770, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America and Local 602, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Party to the Contract . Ca8e No. $-CA-
6031. March 11, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 13, 1959, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Marcus Trucking Company, Inc., herein referred to as Respondent,
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action , as. set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached 'hereto. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged h
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and he
recommended that ,these allegations be dismissed. 'Thereafter, the
Respondent and Local -602 filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and Respondent filed a brief in support of its exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the, hearing and. finds -that no prejudicial error was committed.
426 NLRB No. 131.