The Ironsides Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1564 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of TI3E IRONSIDES COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL WORK-
ERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-624.-Decided December 30, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing,was held before Alan A.
Bruckner, 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
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Reynolds].
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
employees 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 appropriate unit :
The parties stipulated that an appropriate unit should consist of
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Colum-
bus, Ohio, plant, including combination truck driver-laborers, janitors,
shipping and receiving clerks, and any other shipping room employees,
but excluding office employees, professional employees, executives,
guards, and supervisors. The Employer contends, and the Petitioner
denies, that seven individuals described as "working foremen" are
supervisors.
The Employer's plant, which is headed by a president and a general
manager, employs approximately 21 production and maintenance
employees, plus 7 working foremen. There are also 3 superintend-
ents, admittedly supervisors, who are in direct charge'of operations
performed by these 28 individuals, or a ratio of 1 supervisor to ap-
87 NLRB No. 158.
1564
THE IRONSSDES COMPANY 1565
proximately 9 employees. The Employer contends that the working
foremen are also supervisors, making a total of 10 supervisors for 21
employees, a very high supervisory ratio:
There are seven departments at the plant, each of which consists
of one working foreman and from one to three other employees 2 For
example, the working foreman of the boiler room, who is in charge
of the operation of two boilers and of the maintenance of steam pipes,
has one fireman working with him. The working foreman of the
resin department has two employees working with him part time
and sometimes works alone.
The working foremen receive daily production orders from the
superintendents, transmit them to the employees in their departments,
and are responsible for seeing that the orders are carried out. They
spend most of their time doing manual work similar to that done by
the other employees. The record reveals that they never undertake
action on their own initiative, that their jobs are laid out for them
in the daily orders they receive, and that, when they issue directions
to employees working with them, they are in effect transmitting to
them the orders which they have received from one of the superintend-
ents. The relationship of these individuals to the employees working
with them appears to be that of a leadman rather than that of a
supervisor, as that term is defined by statute. In general, the work-
ing foremen have authority to supervise employees in their respective
departments only to the extent that such supervision is usually exer-
cised by experienced employees over those less skilled.
The working foremen have the same working conditions as do the
other employees in the plant. All employees punch time clocks and
receive the same vacation privileges. All except two 3 of the working
foremen are hourly paid and receive only 10 cents more an hour than
the highest paid employees in their respective departments.
The Employer contends that the individuals in question have the
power effectively to recommend hiring, transferring, or discharging
employees, but admits that their recommendations are never acted
upon until an independent investigation has been made by one of the
superintendents. It appears, however, that all employees may recom-
mend persons for employment with the same degree of effectiveness 4
i The relative number of employees and supervisors is one of the factors to be considered
in determining the supervisory status of individuals. Gellman Manufacturing Company,
87 NLRB 292; United States Gypsum Company, 85 NLRB 162.
2 Of the 21 production and maintenance employees , only 14 are employed in these 7
departments.
s The Employer stated that these two working foremen are paid on a salary basis because
of their long experience and exceptional skill.
4 The Employer admitted that, in at least one instance , it refused to rehire a former
employee despite the request of the working foreman that it do so.
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the Employer cited several instances where men had been
discharged after such action had been recommended by a working
foreman,. in each case the employee discharged had obviously violated
plant rules by drinking on the job, by refusing to do his work, or
by repeated absenteeism, or had been extremely inefficient. From all
the evidence, we are of the opinion that any recommendations made
by the working foremen with respect to the status of other employees
are routine in nature and do not require the exercise of independent
judgment.
On the basis of all the facts, we find that the working foremen
are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.5 Accordingly, we
shall include them in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees 6 at the
Employer's Columbus, Ohio, plant, including combination truck
driver-laborers, janitors, shipping and receiving clerks, and any other
shipping room employees, but excluding all office employees, profes-
sional employees, executives, guards, and 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 with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, 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 rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by Oil Workers International Union, C. I. O.
8 Gellman Manufacturing Company, supra, note 1; Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
87 NLRB 257 ; Overhead Door Company of Pennsylvania , Inc., 86 NLRB 65.
6 This includes working foremen.