The General Industries Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1121 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 1121
1956. The Union's principal contention is that the existing union-
security agreement should be held effective for the remainder of
its term. That contention was made in Great Atlantic d Pacific
Tea Company, 100 NLRB 1494, and rejected by a majority of the
Board on the ground that "only by holding that an affirmative deauth--
orization vote immediately relieves employees of the obligations,.
imposed by an existing union-security agreement can the Board give-
effect to the basic congressional objective, unchanged by amendments
directed solely at procedural relief, of not imposing a union-security
agreement upon an unwilling majority." The policy thus established
has consistently been followed by the Board 4 We therefore find no,
merit in this contention.5
4. We find that all production, shipping, and maintenance employees
at the Employer's curtains and drapery manufacturing plant in New
York City, New York, excluding office clerical employees, sales employ-
ees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of an election under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act..
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'Truth Tool Company, 111 NLRB 642 ; Hydraulics Unlimited Manufacturing Co., 10r
NLRB 1646 ; Accurate Molding Corporation, 107 NLRB 1087 ; F. W. Woolworth Company,..
107 NLRB 671.
a The Union contends that the Petitioner failed to introduce any proof that the Union
was the legally constituted bargaining representative at the time the contract was executed.
The Union did not, however , dispute that it in fact was the legally constituted bargaining
representative at all times material , and under the circumstances , the presumption of"
legality remained unrebutted . The Union 's contention that the petition did not encompass
the same unit as set forth in the contract is not supported by the evidence . The Union's
further contention that the withdrawal of one of the joint petitioners vitiated the petition
is likewise without merit, as there is no indication in the record that the authority of the,
other petitioning employee has been withdrawn.
The General Industries Company , Petitioner and Mechanics Edu-
cational Society of America, AFL-CIO ' and Independent Motor-
Workers Union .2 Case No. 8-RM-165. August 21, 1957
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 W. R. Griesbach,'hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from.
prejudicial error and, except as noted, are hereby affirmed 1
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 Rodgers and Bean].
1 Herein referred to as M. E. S. A.
9 Herein referred to as the Independent.
8 The contention of M. E. S. A. as to the adequacy of the Independent 's compliance.
with Section 9 (f) and ( g) of the Act involves administrative matters not cognizable in
118 NLRB No. 153.
450553-58-vol. 118-72
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 parties stipulated and we find that M. E. S. A. is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of the Act. As the record establishes
that the Independent admits employees to membership and exists for
the purpose of dealing with the Employer concerning wages, work-
ing conditions, and related matters, we find, contrary to the contention
of M. E. S. A., that the Independent is also a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. Both labor organizations claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
We find no merit in the contention of M. E. S. A. that the Independ-
ent is ineligible to participate in the election because it allegedly was
organized and is controlled by supervisors. This contention amounts
to an allegation by one intervenor with respect to another of unfair
labor practices not cognizable in this proceeding.' Moreover, a charge
filed by M. E. S. A. alleging that the Employer had violated Section
8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act, apparently based on this same contention,
has been dismissed by the Regional Director on the ground that there
was insufficient evidence to support the charge.' We shall therefore
accord the Independent a place on the ballot in the election hereinafter
directed.
3. M. E. S. A. contended at the hearing that the petition was pre-
mature because the Employer's operations were expanding. The rec
ord establishes that, except for the possible recall of about 20 recently
laid-off employees, the Employer has no present plans to expand its
operations at this plant, and that the possibility of future expansion
is wholly speculative. Accordingly, we find no merit in this conten-
tion and 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.
4. The parties agree that a production and maintenance unit is
appropriate. M. E. S. A. contends, however, that job setter Hartwick
and the group leaders are supervisors and would exclude them, whereas
the other parties contend they are not supervisors and would include
them.
The acknowledged supervisors, in a plant employing about 62
employees, are the general manager, Bender, the general foreman,
Schmidt, the assistant to the general foreman, Oyster, the head
inspector, Greaubaugh, and the receiving foreman, Molter. The
duties of the group leaders, who work under the immediate supervision
this proceeding . The hearing officer erred in permitting testimony on that question, even
in the absence of objection thereto. We are presently administratively satisfied that the
Independent is in compliance . See Desaulniers and Company, 115 NLRB 1025, and
Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852.
4 See Bi-States Company, 117 NLRB 86.
5 See Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361.
CROWN FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. 1123
of Oyster, are to direct the work of, and assign and allocate work to,
groups of from 2 to about 15 relatively unskilled operators according
to schedules provided by Schmidt or Bender; to see that their groups
have an adequate supply of materials; and to instruct new employees.
They spend a substantial part of their time performing production
work, and receive from 5 to 20 cents more per hour than the employees
whom they direct. Hartwick's duties are to instruct new employees;
to set. up the machines in the plant; and, after a changeover has been
made, to assign work to the machine operators in accordance with a
schedule provided by Schmidt. Although his hourly rate is about 50
percent above the average hourly rate of the group leaders, it appears
that this differential is based upon his skills as a job setter. Neither
the group leaders nor Hartwick has authority to take or recommend
personnel action, and Hartwick was at one time reprimanded for
attempting to assume such authority.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we are satis-
fied that Hartwick's assignment of work and the group leaders'
direction of employees is routine, and that neither Hartwick nor the
group leaders possess any of the indicia of supervisory authority.
We find, accordingly, that Hartwick and the group leaders are not
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore
include them in the unit.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Bellville, Ohio, plant, including shipping and receiving
department employees, job setter Hartwick, and the group leaders,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 Ilaleyville Textile Mills , Inc., 117 NLRB 973.
Crown Food Products , Inc. and Crown Candy Company, Inc. and
Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, AFL -CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-
3824. August 21, 1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
On April 27, 1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, among the employees in an appropriate unit at the Employ-
118 NLRB No. 145.