United States Gypsum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1528 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
determination of this dispute, and whether or not they will refrain
from forcing or requiring the Company, by means proscribed in Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign particular work to members
of Local 106 rather than to employees of the Company who are not
members of Local 106.
MEMBERS RoDGERS and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Determination of Dispute.
United States Gypsum Company, Petitioner and Local Union
7-278, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 13-RM-344 and 13-ISM 315.
February 10, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert G Mayberry,
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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. Local Union 7-278, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor or-
ganization and claims to represent 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 Employer manufactures gypsum, cement and asbestos prod-
ucts at its East Chicago, Indiana, plant, which is the only plant
involved herein.
In Case No. 13-RM-345 the Employer seeks a determination of
bargaining representative in a `unit of production and maintenance
1 At the hearing the Union moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the unit
questions involved herein were determined in Umted States Gypsum Company, 105 NLRB
931 and 107 NLRB 122 We find no merit in the Union 's contention The Employer, in
a letter to the Union prior to filing the petitions herein, advised the Union that it doubted
the Union represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate units, and was filing
an employer's petition with the Board for an election to determine the Union 's repre-
sentative status At the hearing the Employer again stated that it doubted the Union's
majority status In such circumstances , as the Employer filed petitions for a determina-
tion of the Union's majority representative status, we deny the Union 's motion to dismiss
the petition
119 NLRB No.191.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 1529
employees. The Union would include and the Employer would ex-
clude as supervisors the board machine operators, glatex machine
operators, shingle wet machine operators, head takeoff men, and the
board lead mechanic who are presently included in the Board certified
production and maintenance unit .2
In Case No. 13-RM-344 the Employer seeks a determination of
bargaining representatives in a unit of testers.' The Employer would
include in the unit the inspectors, who are presently included in the
existing production and maintenance unit.' The Union contends that
the inspectors should remain part of the production and maintenance
employees.
Board machine operators, glatex machine operators, shingle wet
machine operators, and head takeoff men: The Employer employs
a board machine operator, glatex machine operator, shingle wet ma-
chine operator, and a head takeoff man, herein referred to as key
operators, on each of its three shifts, who are under the direct super-
vision of their respective shift foremen. They work on complex
machines with crews varying in size from 4 to 6 employees. Al-
though the Employer's witnesses testified that the key operators may
effectively recommend the change of employees' status and responsi-
bility and direct employees, the record shows that promotions usually
depend on seniority, recommendations for disciplinary action are sub-
ject to review, the key operators merely relay orders of the fore-
men, and grievances are handled by the foremen and higher echelon
personnel. In a previous proceeding the Board concluded that the
key operators involved herein were not supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act, finding on the record therein, that they did not ef-
fectively recommend the change of employee status and they did not
responsibly direct employees.5 In the present record, the Employer
contends that as a result of the increase in production and variety
of products since the prior hearing there has been an increase in
supervisory authority and responsibilities. However, we find insuf-
ficient change in the key operators' duties and functions to warrant
Ending that they are supervisors. In view of these circumstances we
find that the board machine operators, glatex machine operators, head
takeoff men, and shingle wet machine operators are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and shall include them in the unit of
production and maintenance employees.'
2 The Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees on December 16, 1953, following a Board-directed
election in United States Gypsum Company, 105 NLRB 931.
3 The Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
testers following a Board-directed election in United States Gypsum Company, 79
NLRB 194.
4 In United States Gypsum Company, 79 NLRB 194, the Board included the inspectors
in the production and maintenance unit.
5 United States Gypsum Company, 105 NLRB 931 and 107 NLRB 122.
6 United States Gypsum Company , 118 NLRB 20.
1530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board lead mechanic: The Employer employs one board lead me-
chanic who works the day shift only in the engineering department un-
der the supervision of the board maintenance foreman, to whom he is
responsible for all of the maintenance and repair of all mechanical
equipment in the board plant.? The record herein reveals that he usual-
ly works with a crew of 4 mechanics which may be increased when
there is a major breakdown by as many as 6 mechanics. He assigns the
crew members to various maintenance jobs, and determines who is to
work overtime, or on holidays. The record shows that he has effective-
ly recommended transfers and promotions of employees. The record
also shows that the board lead mechanic substitutes for the board main-
tenance foreman an admitted supervisor, 2 days 1 week and 1 day the
next week and when he is on vacations or sick. In view of the fore-
going, we find the board lead mechanic is a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act, and shall exclude him from the unit of production and
maintenance employees.
Inspectors: The Employer agrees with the Union that the inspec-
tors are not supervisors but contends that they should be included in
the unit of testers rather than in the production and maintenance unit
because they perform the same type work as the testers and it would
create more harmony if they are included in the testers unit. We find
no merit in the Employer's contention. The Employer's 6 inspectors, 3
in the board plant and 3 in the glatex shingle plant, are under the su-
pervision of the quality control superintendent who also supervises the
testers. Unlike the testers, who work in the laboratory using test tubes
and the laboratory equipment determining the quality of the product,
the inspectors work at the end of the respective production lines, visu-
ally inspecting the finished product as it comes off the production line
and rejecting culls. The culls are sorted by the inspectors as to type of
imperfection and a written report is prepared which is forwarded to
the quality control division which eventually reaches the production
foreman who confers with employees to prevent further imperfections
in the product. The inspectors have no special schooling or training.
In view of the fact that the inspectors work in the production area and
do not perform work of a technical nature, in accord with customary
Board policy 8 and our prior determination," we shall include the
inspectors in the production and maintenance unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute units
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
7In United States Gypsum Co., 105 NLRB 931, 940, the Board, in the absence of record
evidence , found this employee not to be a supervisor and included him in the unit.
8 See Gerber Plastics Company, 113 NLRB 462; and The F. C. Russell Company, 114
NLRB 38.
0 United States Gypsum Company , 79 NLRB 194.
HOWARD AERO, INC. 1531
•a. All production and maintenance employees including inspectors,
board machine operators, glatex machine operators, shingle wet ma-
chine operators, and head takeoff men, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, testers, guards, professional employees, the board lead me-
chanic, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
b. All testers excluding all other employees, inspectors, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Howard Aero, Inc. and International Union , United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-AFL-CIO). Case No. 39-CA-604. February 11, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 24, 1957, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
supporting briefs.
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, Bean, and
Jenkins].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case. It hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions
only to the extent that they are consistent with the findings and
conclusions set forth below.
1. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by its discharge of
employee Lumpkins and Crew Chief Barclay.
Barclay was employed by the Respondent on March 3, 1955, as a
helper. On August 10, 1956, he was promoted to the position of crew
chief, a supervisory position.' On August 20, Barclay signed a
I The Trial Examiner found that individuals employed as crew chiefs were supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. As the record adequately supports this
finding, we adopt it.
119 NLRB No. 190.