The Woodman Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1784 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thorough organizational program The Committee is not empowered
by the agreement to deal with an Employer concerning labor disputes,
wages, hours, grievances, or conditions of employment. It has no
membership, constitution, bylaws, or treasury.
To substantiate its contention that the Committee is a labor organi-
zation which desires to appear on the ballot, the organizer and the
special assistant to the chairman of the Committee testified at the hear-
ing Both stated that the purpose of the Committee was to organize
the unorganized employees and to place them in the proper jurisdic-
tion. The latter stated that the Committee's work ends after the
employees are organized, and the group is turned over to the Locals
for negotiation of a joint contract, if possible, and if not, separate
contracts. Regardless, each Local services its own membership
Although the Committee's organizer testified that, if the Committee
won an election, it would process grievances until a contract was com-
pleted, there is no evidence that it has done so in the past To the
contrary, as indicated above, under the agreement the Committee has
no authority to do so In addition, the record shows that the Com-
mittee has never been a party to a collective-bargaining agreement.
The Committee has complied with the filing provisions of Section 9
of the Act, and a letter accompanying the papers filed with the Board
states that the Committee operates under the constitution and bylaws
of the two Internationals and exists solely for organizational pur-
poses; that it admits no employees to membership and collects no dues
From the information above and the entire record in this case it is
clear that the Petitioner does not come within the statutory definition
of a labor organization z In view of the Committee's request to be
placed on the ballot, and no like request by either or both Locals, we
grant the Employer's motion to dismiss.
[The Board dismissed the petition ]
2 General Motors Corporation , 117 NLRB 955, 956, Grand Central Aircraft Co Inc,
106 NLRB 358, 359, Sears Roebuck and Company, 106 NLRB 1395, Ohn Mathoeson
Chemical Corporation, 114 NLRB 948, Glove Workers' Union (Crescendoe Gloves Inc ),
116 NLRB 681, 687-688, General Shoe Corporation, 113 NLRB 905, 906 Burroughs
Corporation, 116 NLRB 1118, Geneva Forge, Inc, 114 NLRB 1295 Cf Endicott Johnson
Corporation, 117 NLRB 1886; A C Lawrence Leather Company, 113 NLRB 60
The Woodman Company, Inc. and District Lodge No. 46, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-
RM-235. February 27,1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations At, a hearing was held before A. C. Joy, hearing officer.
119 NLRB No 221.
THE WOODMAN COMPANY, INC. 1785
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a Georgia corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of packaging machinery. Annually it ships directly out of
the State of Georgia goods valued in excess of $100,000. We find the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
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) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The petition filed by the Employer describes the unit as "all
employees except supervisors, office clerical employees and professional
employees," a total of 95 employees. At the hearing it appeared that
the parties are in agreement as to the appropriateness of a production
and maintenance unit but disagree as to the supervisory character of
certain foremen or leadmen, and as to the inclusion of inspectors, serv-
icemen, watchmen, and production control clerks.
The Employer's plant is in Decatur, Georgia. It consists of several
buildings at one location. In the building having the general office
are also housed the machine shop, assembly department, and sheet
metal and welding shop. The parties stipulated that the foremen of
these three production departments, and the plant superintendent,
are supervisors. The other main building houses the engineering
department and stockroom. Separate buildings house the following
departments : shipping and receiving, salvage, paint, plastics, and
supplies for maintenance. There is also an electrical assembly depart-
ment which is located in the assembly department. The parties contest
the supervisory status of the men in charge of these separately housed
departments, as well as electrical assembly, the Employer contending
that they are leadmen or working foremen who simply transmit orders
from the plant superintendent, and the Union contending that they
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The alleged super-
visors are Parker, electrical assembly department; McBrien, salvage
and paint departments; Pensado, plastics department; Hall, shipping
and receiving department; and Davenport, maintenance department.
They lay out work for the other employees, working along with them
about 90 percent of the time.
1786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The plant superintendent testified that he goes into these sep-
arately housed departments, where the status of the lead employee
is in question, 2 to 5 or 6 times a day, that these leadmen act under his
direction, but that they "would have to" assign work. His answers
were vague as to whether leadmen had signed certain pink slips used
to initiate or record personnel changes concerning rank-and-file em-
ployees. It is clear from the record that these slips are used in con-
nection with the discharge of employees. Apparently these slips
bear signature lines for a foreman and for the plant superintendent.
Those for 1956 and following were the subject of a union subpena,
but the Employer declined to produce them on the ground that they
contained confidential wage information not relevant to this proceed-
ing. Reading from a group of about 70 "in his possession," the Em-
ployer's attorney stated that only 1 bore the signature of a leadman-
Parker. Earlier at the hearing Employer's president testified that
some of the leadmen "may have" made recommendations in that man-
ner. A former leadman, recently resigned, testified that he had made
discharge recommendations in that manner and had been told in a
specific instance that a discharge was "up to him"; also that he had
recommended the hiring of an employee who was thereafter hired;
and further that he had been known as "foreman" of the shipping
and receiving department and knew other department heads as fore-
men also. An admitted foreman, also recently resigned, corroborated
this.
The record shows that the leadmen in question, like the four ad-
mitted supervisors, do not punch a time clock, are salary paid and re-
ceive no overtime pay for their overtime work. Their salaries average
15 to 20 percent more than the wages of hourly paid employees. In
the fall of 1956 the men holding the positions in dispute attended a
management school held for the purpose of training supervisors.
Four of them, excepting only the maintenance department head, also
attended weekly meetings on production. However, due to a change
in management, these meetings were discontinued in February 1957.
The Employer's president admitted, however, that this change in
policy was not because of any change in the status of the persons who
had attended. In its house publication the employer has referred to
some of the alleged leadmen as "foremen."
Of the admitted supervisors, only the plant superintendent testi-
fied. He was called by the Union. The Union attempted to subpena
3 others-an admitted foreman and 2 "leadmen"-who did not ap-
pear. The Employer contended that their testimony would be cumu-
lative and that, in any event, they should have had 24 hours' notice.
The hearing officer denied the Union's request for continuance until
it could seek enforcement of the subpenas through the Regional Di-
rector. We think it evident that the testimony of these witnesses
THE WOODMAN COMPANY, INC. 1787
would have been relevant, whether or not it was cumulative. How-
ever, as we conclude-on the basis of the testimony which was taken
that the leadmen in question are supervisors, the Union can have suf-
fered no prejudice by failure of the witnesses it subpenaed to appear.
Contrary to the contention of the Employer we find, on the record
as a whole, that the leadmen in question do effectively recommend
hire and discharge, assign work in a manner requiring the use of
independent judgment, and possess definite indicia of supervisory
authority.1
An additional leadman, Owen, is in charge of the machine shop on
the night shift. No other department has a night shift. Unlike the
other leadmen, Owen is hourly paid and punches the time clock.
It also appears that the foreman of the machine shop, who works on
the day shift, as well as the plant superintendent, stay for the first
hour or two of the night shift, and occasionally drop in at night. The
foreman lays out the work that is to be done, and Owen works along
with the other 12 men who work at night. In case of emergency,
Owen would call the foreman, the superintendent or the president.
Although Owen would report to the foreman anyone who did not
do his work properly, he has no authority to suspend an employee or
effectively recommend discipline. In these circumstances we find
that he is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.'
Servicemen: The parties stipulated to exclude from the unit sales-
men, and the one employee in Canada who works as a combination
sales and service employee. The Union would exclude from the
unit, and the Employer include, the 11 servicemen. Five of these
work out of the Atlanta area and the other 6 are stationed over the
country. They all install and service machines manufactured by the
Employer. There is a service manager who hires all servicemen. He
directly supervises the five servicemen working in the Atlanta area.
The others are directly supervised by the salesmen in their territory.
All service employees are paid a salary and even when working in the
plant, as they do when not engaged in service work, do not punch
time clocks. The outside servicemen come in to the plant 3 or 4
times a year, partly for training purposes. The service manager or
the salesmen decide when they are to come in. The Atlanta group
spends about 50 percent of its time in the plant, mostly in the as-
sembly department. They are assigned to this work by the service
manager, who may call them for service work at any time. On this
record it is clear that the servicemen as a group are separately super-
vised and that those stationed in the field have interests closely con-
' See Dixie Wax Paper Company, 117 NLRB 548 , 550, where the working foreman of
the shipping department was excluded as a supervisor ; compare United States Gypsum
Company, 118 NLRB 20 , where hourly paid key operators were found nonsupervisory.
9 See The Interstate Company, 118 NLRB 746, where night managers were found
nonsupervisory.
1788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
netted with those of salesmen, whom the parties have agreed to ex-
clude. Even the five servicemen with Atlanta as headquarters divide
their time between service work outside the plant and assembly work.
As they are separately supervised and do not spend the major part
of their time in production work, we shall not include them in the
unit. Accordingly, we exclude all servicemen from the unit 3
Production control clerks : There are five production control clerks
who constitute an order section, supervised by the purchasing agent.
The parties stipulated to include the two who work in the stockroom
keeping a perpetual inventory. The other three work in the main
building, between the general office, and the production area, han-
dling plant records pertaining to production matters. One is a woman
who does exclusively clerical work. The other two are men, who go
into the plant to check on orders and if necessary expedite with a rush
tag. This involves about 25 percent of their time. The Employer
estimates that 75 percent of their time is spent in inventory control
by daily checking. The Union would exclude these three employees
from the unit, while the Employer would include them as plant
clerical employees. On this record we find that these three employees
should also be included in the unit. All five employees have the same
supervision and are engaged in similar work. Although their super-
vision differs from that of production employees, they are engaged
in work that is typically plant clerical work and are appropriately
part of the production and maintenance unit.4
Inspectors: The Employer has three inspectors whom it carries
on the payroll as the quality control department. The senior employee
of the three, Mercer, has also worked in the engineering department
installing a new type slicing machine in the field, and teaching regular
installation men how to install it. He continues to spend approxi-
mately 25 percent of his time in that work, but in the Atlanta area.
Unlike the two other inspectors, Mercer is paid a salary and does not
punch a time clock. The inspection work is done in the plant and
requires comparison with blueprints as well as simple visual tests.
Employer contends that Mercer is not a supervisor because this
quality control group has no head, all inspectors being supervised
jointly by the plant superintendent and the chief engineer. The latter
did not testify. However, the plant superintendent testified that
Mercer is "in charge of" quality control, and the testimony of an
employee in the sheet metal department indicates that Mercer directs
the other inspectors in their manner of performing the work. Like
the five leadmen here found to be supervisors, Mercer attended weekly
8 See Drexel Furniture Company , 116 NLRB 1434, 1436; Foremost Dairies, Inc, 80
NLRB 764, 766; Day and Night Manufacturing Company, 65 NLRB 916, 918.
4 See Engine Rebuilding Corporation , etc., 115 NLRB 1776, 1778, where a perpetual
inventory clerk was included in a plantwide unit because the nature of her work was
clearly plant clerical.
JOANNA WESTERN MILLS CO . 1789
production meetings as well as the supervisory training course. On
this record we find that Mercer responsibly directs the work of the
other two inspectors, hence is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.5 We shall include in the unit the two inspectors who work under
him. They work in close contact with production and maintenance
employees and are appropriately a part of that unit.'
Watchmen: The Employer employs two men who make regular
rounds at night for fire security. They admit no one to the plant at
night without telephoning for specific authority to do so. They carry
no firearms and are instructed that they are not there to protect from
burglary. As the primary duty of these employees is to check for
fire hazards, we find that they are not guards and shall include them
in the unit.'
We find that the following employees employed at the Employer's
Decatur, Georgia, plant comprise a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act : all production and maintenance employees, including produc-
tion control clerks, inspectors, watchmen, the leadman on the night
shift, janitors, and regular part-time employees, excluding engi-
neering department employees, salesmen, servicemen, leadmen in elec-
trical assembly, salvage and paint, plastics, shipping and receiving,
maintenance, and qual ity control departments, as well as guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 See Nebel Knitting Company, 106 NLRB 114, 118 , where the head dyer was held
supervisory
Metal Products Corporation, 107 NLRB 94, 90
-Drexel Furniture Company, 116 NLRB 1434, 1437.
9 The parties stipulated the inclusion of janitors and regular pail-tune employees
Joanna Western Mills Co. and Paint, Varnish , Lacquer & Allied
Products Union , Local 950, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-RC-5550.
February 27, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on July 3, 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on
August 1, 1957, under the supervision of the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region among the production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois , plant. Upon completion
of the election , a tally of ballots was furnished the parties . The tally
shows that of approximately 789 eligible voters, 746 cast ballots, of
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
119 NLRB No. 207.