The Clinton Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 946 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE CLINTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and GENERAL
TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 957, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.,
Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-1930. January 26, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On August 31, 1953, the Board issued its Decision, Order,
and Certification in the above-entitled proceeding. In it the
Board ordered that a hearing be held for the purpose of
determining the supervisory status of Howard L. Deering,
whose ballot had been challenged at the election.' Accord-
ingly, on October 1, 1953, a hearing for this purpose was
held before Harry D. Campodonico, hearing officer. The
Employer and the Petitioner appeared and participated. On
October 21, 1953, the hearing officer issued his report, in
which he found that Deering was not a supervisor and should
be included in the unit for which the Petitioner had been
certified. Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions to the
hearing officer ' s report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer
made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the hearing officer's report, the Employer's
exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
makes the following findings.
The Employer, a manufacturer of cement block, has approx-
imately 22 employees at its plant. Paul Beam is superintendent;
Everett Beam, his son , assistant superintendent ; and Herman
Liston, yard foreman. The parties agree that these 3 individuals
are supervisors. The Employer contends, and the Petitioner
denies, that Deering is also a supervisor.
Deering has been employed by the Employer for approximately
7 years. He was originally hired as a carpenter, and apparently
his classification has never been officially changed. He has
always received a higher rate of pay than any of the other
hourly paid employees.' His only supervisors are Paul and
Everett Beam.
Deering reports for work, together with four other employees,
at 5:45 a. m. The rest of the employees report at 8:00 a. m.
Everett Beam arrives at about 7:30 a. m., and Superintendent
Paul Beam at about 8:00.
1 As Deering's ballot could not affect the results of the election, it was unnecessary for
the Board to determine his status before certifying the Petitioner. In its exceptions to the
Regional Director's report, however, the Employer had requested that a hearing be held
to determine whether Deering is a supervisor "because of the importance of this question
when bargaining is entered into."
2He was hired at $1.25 an hour, and now receives $1.75. Liston, the yard foreman, receives
$1.45 an hour, which is 5 cents more than the other employees receive.
107 NLRB No. 196.
THE CLINTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 947
Three of the employees on the early shift , including Deering,
have keys to the plant . Whichever one arrives first unlocks
the door . Until 8:00 or 8:15 , Deering operates a finger lift,
moving blocks to and from the curing room. One of the other
employees on this shift also operates a finger lift; another
operates a mixer; the third operates a block machine; and the
fourth scrapes plates . There is no evidence that Deering directs
the work of these employees . If one of them is absent , however,
Deering may ask one of the others to take over the job ; and the
employees usually comply with such requests from him.
At about 8:15, when another man takes over his lift , Deering
goes to the boilerroom and, working alone, "blows down the
boilers," a 10- or 15-minute operation consisting of washing
sediment out of the boilers and valves . Once in 4 to 6 weeks,
he gives the boiler a complete washdown , which takes most
of the morning . In this task , he sometimes has help from one
of the other employees.
He then helps an employee at the elevator to unload sand and
gravel from railroad cars and fill storage bins . In addition,
he does maintenance and repair work of all kinds, including
welding, plumbing , wiring, carpentry , and masonry work.
In this he occasionally needs assistance . In such cases one
of the other employees usually helps without being asked.
At times, however, Deering asks an employee to help him or,
if Superintendent Beam is present , asks him to assign a man
for this purpose.
The Employer contends that Deering is in charge of the
plant during the early shift , from 5 :45 to 8 : 00 a. m., and that
the employees have been so advised . On the latter point, the
evidence is conflicting . Thus, Everett Beam testified that
Gordon , the Employer ' s general manager, told the employees
at a meeting in September 1950, at which certain changes in
supervision were announced , that "Deering was in charge of
that morning shift to see that it gets there, to see that the
men did their job, and if they didn 't, he was supposed to report
to us and we would take the proper action ." Paul Beam
testified, however , and the hearing officer credited his
testimony , that when Gordon announced the changes in super-
vision , nothing was said about Deering being in charge of
the morning shift ,' and that he himself never made such an
announcement to the whole plant . Deering's testimony was
that Gordon did not say he would be "in charge ," but merely
that he would "be working all over the shop, different places,
and if I was to ask somebody to help me, they was to help me."
On the record as a whole, we believe , as the hearing officer
found , that no supervisor ever told the employees as a group
3As the Employer points out in its exceptions , Paul Beam's testimony on this point was
given in reply to a question about a meeting in May 1951 rather than the meeting in Septem-
ber 1950. From the context , however, it is clear that he and Everett Beam were referring
to the same meeting.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Deering was in charge of them during the morning 2 hours,
or at any time of the day. According to Paul Beam's credited
testimony, however, he told Deering on one occasion, when
no other employees were present , that he wanted Deering
to "take over the morning shift," and has also told him
that he is in charge when neither of the Beams is there.
He further testified that he told one of the employees on the
morning shift that he was to take orders from Deering. Admit-
tedly, however, he has not authorized Deering to hire or
discharge employees; not does it appear that Deering recom-
mends hiring or discharge. Deering, however, is supposed to,
and does, report to Superintendent Beam when employees are
late or derelict in the performance of their duties; and in
some cases when he has made such a report, the employee
has been reprimanded or discharged.
From the above facts and the record as a whole, it appears
that Deering has no authority to hire, discharge, or discipline
any employees or to make effective recommendations with re-
spect to such matters. In our opinion his limited authority
temporarily to transfer men during the early morning shift,
and the fact that he makes reports on employees to Super-
intendent Beam do not bring him within the statutory definition
of a supervisor. Nor is the fact that during approximately 2
hours of the day he is the only one present to see that the
work is properly done conclusive of such status, in view of
the fact that there are only 5 employees present during
this time and that the work appears to be routine in nature,
requiring no independent judgment or responsible direction
on his part.4 Like the hearing officer, therefore, we find
that Deering is not a supervisor, and that he is included in
the unit heretofore found appropriate.
4See Warren Petroleum Corporation, 97 NLRB 1458.
M. H. GRONAUER COMPANY' AND SOUTHLAND PAPER
COMPANYand UNITED PAPERWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 32-RC-698. January 26, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued
herein on November 9, 1953, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on November 19, 1953, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties. The tally shows that of approximately 47 eligible
voters, 24 voted for the Petitioner and 23 voted against the
Petitioner. There was also 1 challenged ballot.
107 NLRB No. 197