The Robert Becht Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1013 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

THE ROBERT BECHT COMPANY 1013-
the Employer's objection.' There is no evidence that their duties have
changed since the Board's decision in that case. The fact that they
may ultimately become livestock buyers is not sufficient reason to deny
them the right to representation under the Act; nor does that fact
militate against their inclusion in the same unit with other produc-
tion and maintenance employees. However, in accord with our usual
practice, we will exclude as managerial employees such of the drivers,
if any, who spend a substantial part of their time in making purchases
for the Employer's account.' As the identity of such drivers does not
appear from the record, the effect of this limitation upon the eligibility
of particular drivers to vote will be determined in ruling upon chal-
lenges to their ballots.
We will, accordingly, direct an election in the following voting
group :
All exchange yard drivers at the Employer's Omaha, Nebraska,
plant excluding those drivers who during a substantial part of their
time buy livestock for the Employer, all other employees, and
supervisors.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to constitute part of the existing plantwide unit.
In that event, the Petitioner may bargain for the employees in the
above voting group as part of such unit and the Regional Director
conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of results
of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 The Employer ' s objection in that case to the inclusion of the exchange yard drivers
in the unit was based on different grounds from those here presented . See footnote 2,
above.
7 Western Electrw Compawy, 100 NLRB 420, 423.
THE ROBERT BECHT COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I. O. AND LOCAL #183, SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, A. F. OF L., PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 9-RC-2156 and
9-RC-2215. March, 18,1955
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election exe-
cuted by the parties hereto, an election by secret ballot was conducted
on August 10, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), among the
employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election,
the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 52 eligible voters, 51 cast ballots, of which 25 were
111 NLRB No. 167.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for United Steelworkers of America, C. I.0.,119 were for Local $183,
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, A. F. of L.,2 1 was
against both participating-labor organizations, and 6 were challenged
by the C. 1. 0.
As the challenges were sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the
challenges, and thereafter, on September 13, 1954, issued and served
upon the parties his report on challenged ballots, in which he recom-
mended to the Board that a hearing be ordered on the issues raised
by the challenges. As there were no exceptions to this recommenda-
tion, the Board thereafter, on October 1, 1954, issued an order direct-
ing hearing on the challenged ballots. A hearing was held on October
25 and 26, 1954, before Richard C. Curry, hearing officer. The Em-
ployer and both petitioning labor organizations appeared and partici-
pated at the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties.
On December 8, 1954, the hearing officer issued and served upon the
parties his report on challenged ballots, a copy of which is attached
hereto, in which he found that Franklin J. Summe, William Hines,
Raymond Morath, Amzi Epeards, and Charles H. Myers were super-
visors within the meaning of the Act, and accordingly recommended
that the challenges to their ballots be sustained and that their ballots
not be opened or counted. Although the hearing officer further found
that Lawrence G. Schumacher was not an office clerical employee as
was alleged in the challenge to his ballot, but a plant clerical employee
who was therefore eligible to vote, he recommended that Schumacher's
ballot not be opened or counted, as his vote would not be determinative
of the results of the election in view of the findings on the other chal-
lenges. In conclusion, the hearing officer recommended that the Steel-
workers be certified as the exclusive representative for purposes of
collective bargaining of all employees in the unit stipulated as appro-
priate by the parties. The Employer and the Sheet Metal Workers
filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's report and recommenda-
tions and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's ruling made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
Board has considered the hearing officer's report, the exceptions thereto
and supporting briefs, and the entire record in this case and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing
officer insofar as they are consistent with the findings and conclu-
sions herein set forth.
1 Herein called C. I. O.
2 Herein called A. F. L.
THE ROBERT BECHT COMPANY 1015
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 organizations involved claim 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 following employees of the Employer, as stipulated by the
parties, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, plant, including the truckdriver, but excluding office
clerical employees, engineers and draftsmen, all professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of shelv-
ing and counters used in grocery stores. The Employer's production
facilities and its total complement of about 70 production employees
are divided into 5 departments, with a leadman in each. The individ-
uals whose supervisory status is in question are the departmental
leadmen. The Employer contends that the plant superintendent is the
only supervisor in the plant, and that the leadmen do not have au-
thority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees, to otherwise affect
their status, or effectively to recommend such action.
The hearing officer took official notice of the record in The Robert
Becht Company, Case No. 9-CA-762, a prior complaint proceeding
involving the Employer. At the hearing in that case on May 3, 4,
and 5, 1954, each of the leadmen here involved testified that he was
a foreman or supervisor, as indicated by the testimony quoted in the
hearing officer's report. Also, although it is not noted by the hear-
ing officer, the Employer stipulated at that hearing that the leadmen
were "working foremen and supervisors." 3
Notwithstanding this previous testimony and stipulation, the Em-
ployer contends that the leadmen were never supervisors at any time
and were never considered supervisors. While the evidence in Case
No. 9-CA-762 is not necessarily determinative or binding regarding
the supervisory status of the leadmen, it clearly indicates that the
leadmen formerly considered themselves supervisors, and were
formerly considered supervisors by the Employer, and is to this ex-
tent inconsistent with the Employer's present contention.
3 The complaint in that case charged, in part, that the Employer had violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act through statements of Leadmen Hines and Morath. In stipulating
as to their supervisory status, the Employer conceded liability for their statements if
found violative. The Intermediate Report found no violation of the Act, and recommended
dismissal of the complaint on the merits In the absence of exceptions, the case was dis-
missed by order of the Board dated July 27 , 1954. The remaining three leadmen covered
by the stipulation appeared as witnesses for the Respondent Employer.
'1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As an alternate contention, the Employer urges that whatever the
status of the leadmen at the time of the hearing in Case No. 9-CA-762,
subsequent changes in the Employer's operations, between the time
of that hearing and the July 30, 1954, payroll period for eligibility to
vote in the election effected a substantial change in the duties of the
leadmen and in the Employer's reliance on the leadmen, so that they
were not supervisors at the time of the election, and are not now super-
visors. However, the leadmen, called as witnesses for the Employer
at the instant hearing, gave testimony inconsistent with this conten-
tion. Each of the leadmen stated specifically that his duties had not
changed since the time of the hearing in the prior case. In view of
the inconsistencies between the Employer's contentions and the testi-
mony of its witnesses in the earlier as well as in the instant case, we
have carefully scrutinized the evidence relating to the duties of the
leadmen, and the relationship of the leadmen to the employees in their
respective departments. We turn now to the facts relating to the
individual leadmen.
Franklin J. Summe is leadinan in the shipping department. He
spends about 75 percent of his time assisting the other employees in
crating and packing goods for shipment. The remaining time is spent
in assigning job orders to the five employees in this department, in
compiling bills of lading for the shipments, and in contacting truck-
ing companies to arrange for transport of the shipments. The employ-
ees notify Summe if a product to be shipped has defective or missing
parts. When additional help is needed in the department, Summe
requests and receives temporary assignment of additional help to his
department. Summe has on occasion complained to his superiors
about the work performance of employees. He receives 30 cents per
hour more than the next highest paid employee. Summe testified "I
work with them and help direct them."
William Hines is leadman in the machine shop, in which there are
usually 4 other employees, but 1 position is currently vacant. He
spends 90 percent of his time doing maintenance work and production
work, but a portion of this includes the inspection of dies and produc-
tion parts made by the other employees. Hines assigns all job orders
and helps the others set up jobs and get them started. When an em-
ployee finishes a job, he returns to Hines for another assignment.
Hines receives the complaints of the leadmen in the other departments
when a die from the machine shop malfunctions or requires adjust-
ment, and assigns a man to work on the die. He receives 30 cents per
hour more than the next highest paid employee, and testified that he
is a "working foreman, or supervisor leadman."
Raymond Morath is leadman in the sheet metal department, in
which there are 12 other employees. Morath testified that in 1949 he
was designated by one of the Bechts to "watch the work and give out
THE ROBERT BECHT COMPANY 1017
the jobs" in his department, and has never been told otherwise. He
receives 65 cents per hour more than the next highest paid employee.
He spends about 80 percent of his time doing production work, which
includes inspecting the work of the others. He considers it his job to
inspect the work and keep the work flowing properly through the de-
partment. Morath assigns all of the employees job orders. There is
a sign posted in this department directing that Morath's permission
must be secured to use any of the machinery.' Morath considers it
his duty to report to the plant office if employees "get out of line," and
he grants time off, later informing the plant superintendent of his
action.
Amzi Epeards is leadman in the welding department, in which there
are about 23 welders, classified according to skill and experience as
welders A, B, or C. Epeards was originally hired as a welder and
later made a leadman . He spends about 71/2 hours of the 9-hour day
in production work, replacing employees at intervals when necessary,
and assisting with difficult jobs. He assigns all job orders to employ-
ees according to their classification and the difficulty of the order, as
indicated by the blueprint which accompanies it. Epeards receives
65 cents per hour more than any welder in the department, and con-
siders that the employees are "under him."
Charles H. Myers is the leadman in the assembly department. The
12 employees in this department do not have regularly assigned posi-
tions, and Myers is responsible for assigning them to positions.
Myers assigns all job orders, and when an employee completes a job,
Myers initials the order as completed, and assigns a new job. He
spends about 80 percent of his time in production work and does some
inspecting, but another employee does most of the inspecting. Myers
receives 65 cents per hour more than any employee in the assembly
department.
In addition to the foregoing evidence as to each of the above, the
record shows that the plant superintendent iegularly conducts meet-
ings of all the above leadmen, at which he consults with them concern-
ing the routing for production and production methods and gives in-
structions "on what he expects them to accomplish."
The Employer contends that the assignment of work in the depart-
ments by the leadmen in assigning the job orders is routine and admin-
istrative, and does not now require the exercise of independent judg-
ment by the leadmen, as the orders are accompanied by blueprints
which detail the operations to be performed. It is clear, however,
that many of the employees cannot read blueprints, and require direc-
* The Employer explains that this sign was put up in the plant which it occupied prior
to January 1954, to prevent damage to machines through unauthorized usage, but dis-
claims knowledge of its authorization or erection in the present plant. However , it does
not appear that the Employer ever rescinded the order authorizing the sign.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion and assistance in executing the job orders. Moreover, all work
performed is performed pursuant to these assignments by the lead-
men, and in each department there are several employees to whom a
particular operation may be assigned, according to its difficulty and
the employees' experience.
On the basis of the entire record, we are persuaded that Summe,
Hines, Morath, Epeards, and Myers, who exercise the only control in
their departments exclusive of the plant superintendent, who exer-
cises overall control, are responsible for the orderly and efficient oper-
ation of their respective departments, and that they responsibly direct
and control the activities of the employees. Accordingly, we find that
they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.' We therefore ex-
clude them from the unit and sustain the challenges to their ballots.
The hearing officer found that Lawrence J. Schumacher was a fac-
tory clerical employee included in the unit and eligible to vote, and
there is no exception to this finding. However, as Schumacher's bal-
lot cannot affect the results of the election, we shall not direct that it
be opened and counted. As a majority of the valid ballots has been
cast for the United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., we shall certify
it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit found appropriate.
[The Board certified the United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0.,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees of the Employer in the stipulated unit found appropriate in para-
graph numbered 4, above.]
6 General Furniture Corporation, 109 NLRB 479
Hearing Officer's Report on Challenged Ballots
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election was
held on August 10, 1954, among the employees in the unit described in item 11 of
said stipulation for certification upon consent election. The tally of ballots evinced
that 25 votes were cast for the United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0.; 19 were for
Local #183, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, A. F. of L.; 1 was
against each participating labor organization; and there were 6 challenged ballots.
Ergo, the challenged ballots were determinative. On September 13, 1954, the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region issued a report on challenged ballots. The
Board, on October 1, 1954, issued its order directing hearing. Pursuant thereto, on
October 6, 1954, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region issued a notice of hear-
ing on challenged ballots.
A hearing was conducted on October 25 and 26, 1954, before the duly designated
hearing officer. The Employer, The Robert Becht Company (hereinafter called
the Employer), United Steelworkers of America, C. I. O. (hereinafter called C. I. 0.),
and Local #183, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, A. F. of L. (here-
inafter called A. F. of L.), appeared by counsel, who participated fully in the hear-
ing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
all witnesses, and to introduce evidence relating to the factual issues raised by the
challenges as ordered by the Board in its aforesaid Order. The Employer, by its
counsel, filed a timely brief with the hearing officer which has been carefully studied
and duly considered in preparing this report. The C. I. 0., by its counsel, moved
by oral motion to incorporate physically the transcript of The Robert Becht Company,
THE ROBERT BECHT COMPANY 1019
Case No. 9-CA-762. The hearing officer reserved ruling on the motion' After
consideration , the motion is hereby denied?
Upon the entire record in the case and from the observations of all the witnesses,
consideration of all documentary evidence , and judicial notice of the record in The
Robert Becht Company , Case No. 9-CA-762, the hearing officer makes the follow-
ing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations to the Board as to the
six challenged ballots in issue.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Employer is engaged in the fabrication , sale, and distribution of shelving and
counters used in grocery stoles. The Employer uses both sheet metal and wood
in the fabrication of said products . Its complement of employees who are engaged
in production work is approximately 70. All production and maintenance employees
are engaged in fabrication on the first floor of the Employer 's plant. Messrs. Robert
F. Becht, Robert H. Becht, and Raymond F. Becht are president, vice president, and
secretary-treasurer, respectively.
On or about May 10, Albert Schwartz was employed by the Employer as the
plant superintendent and placed in charge of the Employer 's only plant. Since said
date, Schwartz has been in complete control and charge of the Employer 's produc-
tion operation at its plant.
The C. 1. 0., the challenging party, challenged:
1. Lawrence G. Schumacher , as an office clerical and excluded by the stipula-
tion for certification upon consent election.
2. Franklin J. Summe, as a supervisor as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (hereinafter called the Act).
3. William Hines, as a supervisor as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
4. Raymond Morath, as a supervisor as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
5. Amzi Epeards, as a supervisor as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
6. Charles H. Myers, as a supervisor as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
The Employer and the AFL contend that said Schumacher is a plant clerical, and
included in the unit as described in the stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion; and further contend that Franklin J. Summe, William Hines, Raymond Morath,
Amzi Epeards, and Charles H. Myers, who are classified as leadmen , are not, nor
have even been, supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
The six individuals who cast challenged ballots have, in common with all other
production and maintenance employees, the following • same working hours, hourly
paid, compensated for time and one-half for any overtime , recipients of same work-
ing benefits and conditions as the other maintenance and production employees,
punch time clock,3 use the same lavatory and cloak facilities, and are paid on the
same payroll and by the same method. These facts are so found by the hearing
officer.
During the material times prior to the election and subsequent to the election, the
Employer had meetings which were attended by the six challenged voters. Mr. Ray-
mond F. Becht or Mr. Schwartz presided at these meetings.4 There were no other
production or maintenance employees of the Employer present at these meetings.
There is a conflict in the evidence as to the number of meetings between the date
Schwartz was employed and the date of the election. From the observations of the
witnesses and their testimony , the hearing officer finds that there were 6 of these meet-
1 All parties were informed by the hearing officer that if they desired to file briefs
their position, with points and authorities on this motion, should be included therein.
2 Under the customary practice of the Board, the hearing officer here, and hereby, in-
forms all parties that judicial notice has been taken of the transcript and record made
in the case of The Robert Becht Company , Case No. 9-CA-762; however, the hearing
officer's cognizance of the cited case is not to be construed as the only basis of any finding,
conclusion, or recommendation contained therein ; notwithstanding that consideration was
given to the testimony of witnesses who testified in the cited case who appeared and also
testified in the instant case Administrative Procedures Act [60 Stat. 241, Section 7(d) ;
Section 1006(d), Title 5 of the United States Code (1952 Edition)] and [60 Stat 242,
Section 8 ; Section 1007(a) and (b), Title 5 of the United States Code (1952 Edition) ] ;
J S. Abercrombie Company, 83 NLRB 524; Avco Manufacturing Corporation, Appliance
if Electronic Division, 107 NLRB 295
3 The production employees are required to punch job production cards which indicate
their working time on a specific order-more anon.
' Meetings prior to the employment of Mr Schwartz were held in Raymond F. Becht's
office. After Mr. Schwartz' employment, meetings were held in Mr. Schwartz' office, which
is adjacent to the plant proper.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings held during the period from May 10 , 1954 , to August 10, 1954 , and were at-
tended by the 6 named individuals who cast challenged ballots and which are in issue
and does hereby discredit any testimony to the contrary, only as to this finding. The
purpose of these meetings that were held by management , and which these six in-
dividuals attended , was to outline the production schedules and give instructions to
those present on the expeditious manner by which to accomplish the jobs assigned to
the various departments in which the leadmen were assigned.
A. Lawrence G. Schumacher
It appears from the record that Mr. Schumacher's duties require that he is to make
up the job production cards and to follow the work through each of the depart-
ments for the specific purpose of determining what materials are needed to facilitate
and expedite the meeting of the production schedule for that department. After
obtaining information as to the materials needed , Mr. Schumacher is required to
requisition the necessary materials for the various departments. Mr. Schumacher
has an office which is located in the plant. He, at no time, is required to, with rare
exception, leave his place of employment at the production plant and go to the gen-
eral offices. He is under the direct supervision of the plant supervisor and works
the same hours as all the other production and maintenance employees.5 Mr.
Schumacher spends approximately 70 to 80 percent of his time expediting produc-
tion in the plant. The remainder of his time is spent in typing requisitions. There
were no employees, during the time material hereto, who worked in the same depart-
ment, or on related work, as Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Schumacher is hourly paid and
his name appears on the factory payroll. Mr. Schumacher has attended the meet-
ings of the leadmen referred to above.
Conclusion
From the entire record, the hearing officer concludes that Mr. Schumacher, the
expediter, is a factory clerical employee sharing a community of interest and work-
ing conditions with the production and maintenance employees. Accordingly, Mr.
Schumacher should be included in the production and maintenance unit. as described
in the stipulation for certification upon consent election.
B. Franklin J. Summe
During the material period, this individual was the leadman in the shipping and
receiving department of the Employer's plant. Franklin Summe testified as to his
duties on direct examination as Employer's witness in The Robert Becht Company,
Case No. 9-CA-762, as follows:
Q. (By Mr. Bauer.) And in what capacity are you employed by the Becht
Company?
A. Foreman, in shipping and receiving.
Q. And at the present time you're working at what plant?
A. Woodrow Street plant.
Q. Now I'll ask you if you know a man by the name of James McGill?
A. Yeah, I do.
Q. And how long have you known James Lester McGill?
A. From the day that I started working at the Becht Company, on November
23, I was put in charge of Mr. McGill.
Q. Now you were his immediate supervisor, is that correct?
A. That's right.
Q. Now will you tell us in your own words what kind of worker Mr. McGill
was?
A. Well, he was a type of man that had to be continually prodded and pushed
to do his job.
Q. Otherwise what would happen?
A. He would take and walk off the job, I had numerous complaints from
other employees that he wasn't holding his end of the work up.
6 The office clerical employees report for work one-half hour later than the production
and maintenance employees , are salaried , and are under the supervision of the general
office.
THE ROBERT BECHT COMPANY 1021
Q. Now referring your attention, Mr. Summe, to Friday, January the 8th,
when there was a load of steel to be unloaded at the Evans Street plant. Does
that recall to you what happened on that day?
A. Well, as to that incident, was called approximately right around after
lunch-
Q. By whom were you called?
A. Larry Schumacher, that there was a load of steel to be loaded, and at that
time, I sent Harrison James, one of the other labor men, from the Woodrow
Street plant to the Evans Street plant.
Q. And how long does it take a man to walk that distance?
A. Shouldn't take over five minutes. So, in the meantime, I needed two men,
I knew that originally, so in the meantime Younger came back with the truck
and a load of material, so immediately I told McGill, at the door, of the Wood-
row Street plant, to go over to the Evans Street plant and help them unload
steel, then I went about the rest of my business in the warehouse.
Q. Did Jimmie Younger hear you tell Mr. McGill to go over to the Evans
Street plant?
A. They were both at the door when I told him.
It appears not only did Mr. Summe consider himself a supervisory employee at
the time of the prior hearing on May 5, 1954, but the Employer, by its counsel, dur-
ing that hearing, questioned this witness as to his authorities and duties, which clearly
indicates that these were the facts as to Summe's authorities and duties at that time.
These facts clearly reflect at that time that Mr. Summe was a foreman and a super-
visor as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, and the hearing officer so finds, con-
trary to what Mr. Summe stated on direct examination at the instant hearing.6
Mr. Summe specifically stated in his testimony in the instant case that his duties
have not changed since he became a leadman? Further, Mr. Summe testified in
the instant proceedings that the men in the shipping and receiving department always
came to him to be assigned new orders after the completion of their previous assign-
ment. Mr. Summe does production work, approximately 75 percent of the time.
The amount of the 75 percent spent in assisting the other employees in the shipping
and receiving department is within his sole discretion. The remainder of his time
is spent in compiling bills of lading and communicating with the trucking companies
for the movement of crated products. His testimony as to these facts is corroborated.
Mr. Summe is the leadman in the shipping and receiving department who gives
substantial orders to the employees in that department. He is the only leadman in
this department. He receives no instructions from Mr. Schwartz in regard to the
orders when they are placed on his table, and the record evinces that he infrequently
consults with Mr. Schwartz in his daily routine as to production methods. Mr.
Summe has exercised during the material period considerable discretion and judg-
ment in the distribution and assignment of work. Further, it reflects that he must
take into consideration the nature of the product being packed and the general flow
of work in his and other departments to determine the number of men to be assigned
to various jobs in the shipping and receiving department. Mr. Summe attends the
leadmen's meetings. His pay was $1.80 per hour, the highest in this department.
The next highest was $1.50 per hour, and the next was $1.30 per hour.
6 It is apparent from the transcript of the instant case that Mr. Summe's conclusive
testimony, which is in direct contradiction of the facts testified to in Case No. 9-CA-762,
was pursuant to leading questions after the Employer's counsel had been cautioned fre-
quently on the record to abstain from leading the witness. These leading questions , consid-
ered in the light of the transcript in 9-CA-762 strain the credulity of the hearing officer to
presently consider Mr Somme's testimony as to the actual facts of his duties and his
authority to recommend certain actions. It is not to be inferred that the bearing officer
is hereby discrediting the testimony of Mr. Summe given in the instant case, but it is
the express and considered opinion of the hearing officer from the observations of the
witnesses, the leading questions of Respondent's Counsel, and the testimony of Mr. Summe
in Case No. 9-CA-762, that his conclusionary testimony in the instant case be discredited
insofar as it conflicts with his factual testimony in Case No. 9-CA-762, except where he
is specifically credited by the hearing officer
'i This is corroborated by the testimony of Raymond F. Becht in response to the hear-
ing officer 's question :
Q (By hearing officer ) In regard to Mr. Summe's duties, are they the same-
were they the same on August 10, 1954, as they were prior to that time"
A. Frank Summe's duties have practically been the same at all times
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In addition , Mr. Summe in January 1954 recommended the discharge of Mr.
McGill, which recommendation , after an investigation , was acted upon favorably.
Mr. Summe's duties have not changed from the date of Mr. McGill 's discharge to the
time material hereto. On the entire record, the hearing officer finds that Leadman
Franklin J. Summe can effectively recommend changes in status of employees in
the shipping and receiving department and the employees in this department are
under his responsible direction . He assigns all employees in said department their
respective duties. I further find that Summe 's exercise of these authorities is not
of a routine , administrative , or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent
judgment.
Conclusion
On the entire record and the facts found above, the hearing officer concludes that
Leadman Franklin J. Summe, at all times material hereto , could effectively recom-
mend changes in the status of employees in this department and was responsible
for the sequence and flow of work in this department, for the meeting of production
requirements , and for the entire manufacturing process in this department . Further,
as noted above , he possesses other indicia of supervisory status, ergo , the hearing
officer concludes that Leadman Summe , at all times material hereto, was a supervisor
within the definition of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
C. William Hines
During the material period , Mr. Hines was the leadman in the machine shop.
There are three other employees in this department . He spends approximately 90
percent of his time performing production work which he assigns to himself and the
remainder is spent in giving orders to the other men in his department . He receives
the complaints of the other leadmen in regard to the mulfunction of dies made
by the employees in the machine shop , and based upon this information assigns the
employees who had made the die to make the repairs or the adjustment required
for efficient operation of machines on which the dies are used. He is paid approxi-
mately $1.85 per hour, which is approximately 30 cents higher than the next highest
paid employee in that department.
Mr. Hines, when called as a witness by the Employer in The Robert Becht Com-
pany, Case No. 9-CA-762, testified as follows:
Q. And what is your job, Mr. Hines?
A. Well, supervisor , I guess
Q. Of what department?
A. Machine shop.
Mr. Hines testified, and I find, that his duties since the hearing held in Case No.
9-CA-762 have not changed. Mr. Hines attended all of the leadmen's meetings
held by the Employer. He is required to inspect the first piece of work produced
by the employees in his department. After the employees in his department have
completed their work orders, they are required to obtain the next work orders from
Mr. Hines. Mr. Hines is authorized to assign employees to assist him in doing main-
tenance work in the plant. These facts are so found by the hearing officer
Conclusion
On the entire record and the facts found above, the hearing officer concludes that
Leadman Hines ' exercise of authority is not of a routine or administrative nature and
the duties of this individual requires the exercise of independent judgment in assign-
ing, inspecting , and assigning corrections in the work of the employees in this depart-
ment. Further , he possesses other indicia of supervisory status as found above;
ergo, the hearing officer concludes that Leadman Hines, at all times material hereto,
was a supervisor within the definition of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
D. Raymond Morath
From the testimony in the instant case, it appears that Mr. Morath is the leadman
in the sheet metal department , and spends 80 percent of his time on production work
which he assigns to himself. There are 12 other employees in this department. This
leadman has granted time off to two employees on October 25, 1954, and has made
recommendations that disciplinary action be taken against employees in this depart-
ment who have gotten out of line, which recommendations, after investigation, were
acted upon favorably. He is compensated at the rate of $2.75 per hour. The lowest
paid in that department receives $ 1.10 per hour . Mr. Morath has the authorization
THE ROBERT BECHT COMPANY 1023
to pencil in on his production timecard the amount of time he spends on various jobs.
No other production and maintenance employee, except leadmen, have this author-
ity. He has the authorization to assign himself to any job, which, in his independ-
ent discretion, requires him to assist the other employees in expeditiously completing
production in this department. He instructs other employees what work is to be per-
formed on the basis of interpreting blueprints attached to the job orders. He attended
all of the leadmen's meeting described above. A sign posted in this department,
signed by The Robert Becht Company, instructed all employees to obtain author-
ization from Mr. Morath to use certain machines in this department. He directs
the work of the employees in this department by assigning them the job order of
production work to be performed by these employees. Further, he inspects their
work to determine whether it is performed efficiently and correctly.
Mr. Morath, when called as a witness by the Employer in The Robert Becht
Company, Case No. 9-CA-762, stated as follows:
Q. (By Mr. Bauer.) And what kind of work do you do?
A. I'm sheet metal foreman. Working foreman, anyhow, foreman.
Q. And is Mr. Butler in your department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I think Joe Nohrer is in your department, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you know Mr. McGill, James Lester McGill?
A. Not too well, just from seeing him around the plant.
Q. And have you-Has he ever worked in the, near you when you were in the
Evans Street building?
A. Only one time that I remember that he came over to our building to trans-
fer some refuse cans, out of my department, over into the new building.
From this testimony and other testimony in that record, it appears that Mr. Morath
was a supervisor at the time of that hearing, and it is so found. Mr. Morath testified
in the instant case that his duties have not changed.
Conclusion
On the entire record and the facts found above, the hearing officer concludes that
Leadman Morath, at all times material hereto, could effectively recommend changes
in the status of employees in the sheet metal department and was responsible for the
sequence and flow of work in that department, for the meeting of the production
requirements, and for the entire manufacturing process in this department. Fur-
ther, he possesses other indicia of supervisory status as found above. Accordingly,
the hearing officer concludes that Leadman Morath, at all times material hereto, was
a supervisor within the definition of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
E. Amzi Epeards
Mr. Epeards is the leadman in the welding department. There are 23 other men
in this department in which helio-arc welding, arc welding, and acetylene welding
are performed. He assigns production orders to each of the employees in this de-
partment and assists them in the performance of their duties. Most of the men in
this department are required to read blueprints in the performance of their pro-
duction work. However, those employees who cannot read blueprints are told what
to do by Epeards. Mr. Epeards inspects the work of the employees in this depart-
ment and, upon their completion of the assigned work order, he assigns a new order
to them.
Mr. Epeards, when called as a witness by the Employer in The Robert Becht
Company, Case No. 9-CA-762, testified on direct examination, as follows:
Q. Now prior to January first, 1954, were you the foreman of an operation
that was located in the building, the second floor of the building located at the
corner of Gest Street and Evans?
A. That's right.
Q. And, what department were you in?
A. That was the carpenter shop, assembly.
Q. And, you were the foreman in that department?
A. (Nodding).
From the testimony and the record in that case, the hearing officer finds that Mr.
Epeards was a supervisor at that time under the definition of Section 2 (11) of the
Act. Further, Mr. Epeards testified in the instant case that his duties have
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not changed. Mr. Epeards is responsible for the sequence and flow of work in this
department, for the meeting of production requirements, and for the entire manu-
facturing process in this department, and it is so found.
Conclusion
On the entire record and the facts found above, the hearing officer concludes that
Leadman Epeards, at all times material hereto, could effectively recommend changes
in the status of employees in this department and was responsible for the sequence
and flow of work in this department, in the meeting of production requirements, and
for the entire manufacturing process in this department. Further, as noted
above, he possesses other indicia of supervisory status, and the hearing officer con-
cludes that, at all times material hereto, he was a supervisor within the statutory
definition.
F. Charles H. Myers
Mr. Myers is a leadman in the final assembly department and spends approxi-
mately 90 per cent of his time on production work which he assigns to himself.
There are 12 men in this department. He is compensated at the rate of $2.25 per
hour. The next highest paid employee in this department receives $1.85 per hour
and the lowest paid man is paid $1.50 per hour. Mr. Myers when performing pro-
duction work pencils in on the production timecard the amount of time he spent on
that job. No other production and maintenance employees, except leadmen, have
this authority. He is authorized to assign himself to any job which, in his inde-
pendent discretion, requires him to assist the other employees in the expeditious per-
forming of any production job in this department. All employees in this depart-
ment are required to read blueprint. He authorizes employees to lay aside defective
parts and to use another part in lieu thereof. He directs the work of the employees
in this department by assigning them the job order of production work to be per-
formed. He inspects and checks each employee's work to determine whether it is
performed efficiently and correctly. He has attended all leadmen's meetings de-
scribed above.
Mr. Myers, when called as a witness by the Employer in The Robert Becht Com-
pany, Case No. 9-CA-762, testified on direct examination, as follows:
Q. And by whom are you employed?
A. Robert Becht Company.
Q. How long have you been in the employ of the Robert Becht Company?
A. About a year.
Q. And in what capacity are you employed?
A. Well, I started there as a carpenter, and eventually worked up to a
foreman.
Q. Of what department?
A. The final assembly, on merchandise, for Supermarkets.
From this testimony and other testimony in that record, it appears that Mr. Myers
was a supervisor at the time of that hearing, and it is so found. Mr. Myers further
testified during the instant case, that his duties have not changed.
Conclusion
On the entire record and the facts found above, the hearing officer concludes that
Leadman Myers, at all times material hereto, could effectively recommend changes
in the status of employees in the final assembly department and was responsible for
the sequence and flow of work in this department, for the meeting of production
requirements, and for the entire manufacturing process in this department. Further,
he possessed other indicia of supervisory status as found above. Accordingly, the
hearing officer concludes that Leadman Myers is a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
In support of the above findings of fact and conclusions in regard to Franklin J.
Summe, William Hines, Ray Morath, Amzi Epeards, and Charles H. Myers, the
hearing officer finds the Employer's complement of employees, which is approxi-
mately 70, included within at least 5 departments, to be supervised only by Mr.
Schwartz, would result in a ratio of 1 supervisor to approximately 70 employees
working in at least 5 departments; ergo, the hearing officer concludes that this sup-
ports, but is not the sole basis of, the above findings and conclusions that the above-
named leadmen responsibly exercise their discretion in directing the work of the
employees assigned to their various departments. This finding is made with full
cognizance of the meetings held by the Employer after the election . The testimony
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1028 1025
in regard to these meetings allude that all employees were instructed that Mr.
Schwartz was to have complete charge of the operations and that he was the only
one who had authority to hire or fire , and all authority vested in any other employee
was thereby revoked. Notwithstanding the notice to all employees which was sub-
sequent to the election , the testimony of the leadmen reflect that their duties have
remained the same. The title "leadman" is not determinative , but was only one of
the factors to be considered in determining the status of the challenged employees.8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Lawrence G. Schumacher is a plant clerical employee and included in the unit.
William Hines , Franklin J . Summe, Raymond Morath , Amzi Epeards, and Charles
H. Myers are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
8 Poultry Enterprises, Inc. v. N. L R B , 216 F. 2d 798 ( C. A 5) ; Ideal Roller & Manu-
facturing Company, 104 NLRB 931; W . F & John Baines Company, 96 NLRB 1136;
Mother's Cake & Cookie Company, 105 NLRB 75 , Angelo C. Scavullo , et al., d/ b/a Legion
Utensils Company, 109 NLRB 1327 ; Mock, Judson, Voehringer Company of North Caro-
lina, Inc, 110 NLRB 437.
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION No. 1028, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN-
TERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, and N. W. BLACK . Case No. 16-
CB-65. March 91,1955
Decision and Order
On June 22, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his In-
termediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in vio-
lation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act, and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications I and
additions :
The Dennehy Construction Company is a partnership having its
print}pal office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and at all times mate-
rial has been engaged, as general contractor under contract with the
Southern Memorial Hospital Foundation of Ardmore, Oklahoma, in
the construction of a hospital at Ardmore. Its contract for the con-
' Without determining whether a discriminatory refusal to hire occurred on September
17, 1953, a date beyond the Section 10 ( b) period, it is clear that the Blacks requested,
and were refused , referral slips from Estes, the Respondent 's business agent, on September
28, 1953, a date within the Section 10 (b) period
111 NLRB No. 180.