Texas Bronze Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1373 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

TEXAS BRONZE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1373
As previously indicated, we believe that the employees hereinafter
specified should be given an opportunity by a self-determination elec-
tion to express their desires with respect to being included in the.exist
ing office clerical unit currently represented by the Union. Accord-
ingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting group:
All secretaries, salaried payroll clerks, clerk-TEL, clerk-industrial
engineering, and intermediate and junior auditors employed by the
Employer at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana, operations, excluding all
employees presently covered by the certification in Case No. 15-R-1527,
the secretaries to resident manager; manager, employee relations;
associate manager, employee relations; assistant resident manager;
vice president, research and development; 'staff assistant to vice presi-
dent, research and development; general manager, research and de-
velopment, operations; manager, maintenance and construction; gen-
eral superintendent, plant and employee services; manager, TEL and
intermediate operations; general superintendent, industrial engineer-
ing, technical operations; general superintendent, production plan-
ning, technical operations; assistant treasurer; and chief of plant
physicians, the head and senior auditors, the employees in the electronic
application group, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the above voting group cast
their ballots for the Union, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a part of the existing office clerical unit currently
represented by the Union, and the Union may bargain for such em-
ployees as part of that unit. If a majority of them vote against the
Union they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain
outside the existing unit, and the Regional Director will issue a
certification of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Texas Bronze Manufacturing Company , incorporated' and
Lodge 1591 , International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC 2132. September 17,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act, a hearing
was held before Marvin-L. Smith, Jr.; 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
a The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
118 NLRB No. 186.
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations 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. The Petitioner seeks to represent in a single unit all production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's aluminum castings
plant at 109 E. Lowden Street, and magnesium castings plant at
Mansfield Highway, Fort Worth, Texas. The Employer contends
that only single-plant units are appropriate.
The Employer has its principal office at the Lowden Street address
where all administrative, accounting, payroll, personnel, and clerical
work is performed with the exception of one employee, attached to
production planning, who is located at the Mansfield Highway loca-
tion as a liaison to that plant. The Employer has no operating divi-
sions other than the two plants involved in this proceeding. There is
no history of collective bargaining for any of the employees involved.
The business operations of the Employer consist of the production of
foundry products and are identical in both plants except that one
handles aluminum whereas the other uses magnesium. Each plant has
a general superintendent who is under the direction of the administra-
tive division and officers of the Employer. The departmental break-
down of each plant is parallel to that of the other and substantially
identical skills are needed. Both plants are serviced by a single
maintenance department, a pattern shop, and a shipping and receiving
department. When a new employee is hired, he is sent to whichever
plant has need for additional help. Although interchange of em-
ployees between the 2 plants is not substantial, transfers are not
uncommon, especially during periods of layoffs due to a lack of orders
in 1 plant, because of their common skills and classifications and the
investment the Employer has made in training employees in these
jobs. At present, 15 cleaning room department employees of the
magnesium plant are located in the aluminum plant because of lack
of space at the former location.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this proceed-
inn, particularly the centralized control, the similarity of duties and
skills, the uniform conditions of employment, the transfer of em-
ployees. and the fact that the 2 plants encompass the entire operations
of the Employer and no union is seeking to represent either of the
TEXAS BRONZE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1375
plants separately, we find that the 2-plant unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is appropriate.2
The parties are in general agreement that an appropriate unit should
include production and maintenance employees. However, the Em-
ployer would exclude 2 janitors on the ground that they are not
engaged in the production process, and also would exclude 2 furnace
room leadmen and 6 or 8 cleaning room leadmen at the magnesium
plant on the ground that they are supervisors.3
The 2 janitors, 1 located at each plant, perform the usual janitorial
duties of sweeping and cleaning. The one located at the aluminum
plant also cleans the Employer's general offices there. As janitors
are customarily included with production and maintenance employees,
and no persuasive reason has been given for their exclusion, we find
that they are appropriately a part of the unit .4
With respect to, the leadmen, the company president testified that
they all possess the same authority to recommend hire, transfer, and
wage increases and that these recommendations are given weight.
Although the record does not establish that leadmen have been in-
formed of such authority, one leadman admittedly requested a raise
for all the men in his department and the record shows that such a
raise was granted .5 In addition, the record shows that this particular
leadman, a witness for the Petitioner, attained this position after
employees had requested the removal of his predecessor because he
had had two employees fired. Moreover, it is sufficient that the lead-
men whom the Employer claims are supervisors have, in fact, the
authority to exercise the duties and responsibilities from which the
Act draws the necessary inference of supervisory status.6 On the
basis of the record before us, we find that the leadmen are supervisors.
Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit.
We find that the following employees at the Employer's two Fort
Worth, Texas, plants 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 at the Lowden Street
and Mansfield Highway plants of the Employer, including janitors,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
s Compagnie Generale Transatlantique (French Line), 117 NLRB 535 ; Consolidated
Cement Corporation , 117 NLRB 492 ; Textron, Inc ., 117 NLRB 19 . Cf. Wm. R. Whittaker
Co., Ltd., 117 NLRB 339.
3 In addition to the two plant superintendents , the parties agreed to exclude assistant
foremen in charge of various departments as supervisors . Those named as assistant
foremen are Mr. Mendez , cleaning room ; Mr. Elrod, molding ; Mr. Adams, coremaking;
Mr. Chamberlin , inspection ; and Mr. Stevenson , pattern shop=all in the magnesium
plant ; and Mr. Butler , cleaning room ; and Mr . Nelms , core room, at the aluminum plant.
* See Charlotte Tank Corporation , 114 NLRB 1459, 1451, and cases cited therein.
5 See Controls Company of America, Schiller Park Plant , 118 NLRB 170.
d The Eavey Company, 115 NLRB 1779, 1782.