Wesco Electrical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 479 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY
J. K. Electronics, Inc, d/b/a Wesco Electrical
Company and United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (UE), Local No. 259. Cases
I-CA- 12404 and l-RC- 14745
September 28, 1977
DECISION, ORDER, AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
On May 31, 1977, Administrative Law Judge John
M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Re-
spondent Employer filed exceptions and supporting
briefs. Both filed answering briefs and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings '
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein. 2
We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that the group leaders herein are leadmen
rather than supervisors. Contrary to the Administra-
tive Law Judge, we find that the record reveals that
group leaders do have the power to effectively
recommend disciplinary action in the form of verbal
and written warnings for such things as rule
infractions and low production. While it is true, as
the Administrative Law Judge indicates, that inde-
pendent supervisory investigations are made, this is
not true in all cases. The record contains, in our
opinion, sufficient examples of effective recommen-
dation by group leaders to make them supervisors.
We also note in this record that in the vast majority
of cases the written warning notices, whether
recommended by the group leader or suggested by
the production shift supervisor, are signed by the
group leaders and usually delivered to the employee
by the group leader.
In his Decision the Administrative Law Judge sets
out the job description for group leaders, the duties
of which include, "make recommendations on all
new personnel to the Shift Supervisors," "review
I Both the Petitioner and the Respondent Employer have excepted to
certain credibility findings made by the Adrministrative Law Judge. It is the
Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all
of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect.
Standard Dry W'all Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
232 NLRB No. 75
individual production tabulations . . . and report
substandard totals to the Shift Supervisor," and
report all "personnel and production problems,"
"incidents of insubordination," and "absences and
tardiness" to the shift supervisor. The Administrative
Law Judge concluded that the duties outlined were
those of a leadman. In our view, however, since the
record is clear that these kinds of considerations
often result in verbal and written warnings, the job
description further supports our finding that group
leaders have the power to effectively recommend
disciplinary action.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees,
regular part-time employees, production control
clerical employees, and shipping and receiving
employees as J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco
Electrical Company, 201 Munson Street, Green-
field, Massachusetts, excluding office clerical
employees, sales clericals, inside and outside
salesmen, quality control technicians, profession-
al employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
As all the challenges have been sustained, the tally
shows that the Petitioner has obtained a majority of
the valid ballots cast and we shall certify it as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco Electrical
Company, Greenfield, Massachusetts, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
Substitute the following for paragraph 1:
"1. Cease and desist from:
"(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees.
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act."
(C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing his findings.
2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently omitted from his
recommended Order the narrow language, "in an) like or related manner,"
for his findings of an 8(aXI) violation. We shall modify his recommended
Order to conform to the language in his notice.
479
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America (UE), Local No 259,
and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said labor
organization is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the unit found appropriate herein for
the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER, Administrative Law Judge: United
Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE),
Local No. 259, herein called UE, the Union or Petitioner,
filed a charge against J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco
Electrical Company, herein called Wesco, the Company, or
Respondent, on November 3, 1976,1 and an amended
charge on November 22, alleging that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On November 24, the Regional
Director issued a complaint and notice of hearing which
alleged that Respondent had violated Section 8(aX)(1) of the
Act by the questions and remarks of Company President
Robert Kugell and Production Manager Brian Lowell
during September and October. On December 10, Respon-
dent filed a timely answer which admitted the jurisdictional
and commerce allegations and the supervisory positions of
Kugell and Lowell but denied that it had violated the Act
in any manner. On January 27, 1977, the Regional Director
issued an order consolidating cases and notice of hearing
which consolidated the representation case with the unfair
labor practice case for resolution of issues of challenged
ballots and objections.
The Union filed its representation petition on October 1,
and the parties signed a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election on October 25, which was thereafter
approved by the Regional Director. The election, conduct-
ed on December 9, resulted in 56 votes for the Petitioner,
47 against, and 12 challenged ballots. Thereafter, the
Union filed timely objections to the election. The unit
found appropriate for Respondent's employees is: "all
production and maintenance employees, group leaders,
regular part-time employees, production control clerical
employees, and shipping and receiving employees at J. K.
Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco Electrical Company,
located at 201 Munson Street, Greenfield, Massachusetts,
but excluding office clerical employees, sales clericals,
inside and outside salesmen, quality control technicians,
professional employees, guards and supervisors and all
others as defined in the Act." Of the 12 challenged ballots,
10 are group leaders who were challenged by the Union as
being supervisors and Respondent challenged the eleventh
group leader to keep the matter consistent. The twelfth
I Unless specifically stated otherwise, the events in this case took place
during 1976.
person challenged is Rose Kugell, the mother of the
president of the Company.
The hearing in this matter was held on February 23 and
24, 1977, in Greenfield, Massachusetts, and the parties
were afforded full opportunity to appear, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally. General
Counsel, Respondent, and the Union have each filed briefs
which have been fully considered. As to the complaint
allegations, I have concluded that Production Manager
Lowell did violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on or about
September 22 by his statements to and questions of the
employees, but that complaint allegations 8(c), (d), and (e)
asserting alleged 8(aXI) violations by President Robert
Kugell and Lowell were not sustained and therefore will be
dismissed.
In the representation case, I have determined that the
challenge to Rose Kugell should be sustained but that the
challenges to the I 11 group leaders should be dismissed
since I do not find them to be supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. The Union, in its brief, moved to
withdraw the objections in this case and that motion will be
granted.
On the entire record in this case, including both my
evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses, based on the
evidence received and my observations of their demeanor,
and upon all the evidence received, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a Massachusetts corporation with its
principal place of business in Greenfield, Massachusetts,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
tion of electrical components. During the past year,
Respondent received materials shipped to its plant from
points directly outside Massachusetts which were valued in
excess of $50,000, and it shipped goods and materials
directly to points located outside Massachusetts which
were valued in excess of $50,000.
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union herein is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
The Company's basic production is electronic capacitors
for which, according to the Company, there is a very small
profit margin. The Company receives a sales order in the
production control department and a flow ticket is written
which goes to the warehouse where the materials are set
aside for it since the flow ticket contains the specifications
and a completion date. Materials and the ticket are then
sent to the winding department where the capacitor is
480
WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY
wound to a proper capacity. The capacitors in the order
and the ticket are sent to the curing room where the
capacitors are either heated or frozen, according to what is
ordered, and then sent to the sorting section where they are
tested for capacity tolerance. Each order contains a
tolerance specification from the buyer as to what tolerance
it will allow above or below the specification. From that
department, capacitors go to the pinning bench where
leads are attached and then to the taping section where
mylar tape is wrapped around the capacitor. From there,
they go to the potting department where the ends of the
capacitors are filled with epoxy. The capacitors next go to
the inspection department and quality control where they
are inspected mechanically and for electric capacity. The
sections in the plant follow one another in order so that
production is in a straight line. In addition, there is an
automotive section where metal shields are placed on the
capacitors.
Reporting to President Kugell are Robert Bialecki, the
quality control manager, Brian Lowell, the production
manager, and James DeSanty. the sales manager. Under
Lowell are Guy Manners, the day-shift supervisor who is in
overall charge of winding and sorting; Lorraine King, the
day-shift supervisor on the production line, which consists
of the remaining departments after winding; Lucy Hassay,
the supervisor over the automobile section; Jeff Leveille,
night-shift supervisor of winding and shorting; and Ron
Wandscher, night-shift production line supervisor. Ray
Kimberly is the day-shift supervisor of the winding
department and reports to Guy Manners. All of the above
supervisors are salaried.
In the winding department on the day shift is a group
leader and six employees, while the second-shift operation
has only three employees. The sorting department has a
group leader on the day shift and 16 employees and the
second shift has a group leader and 12 employees. In the
pinning department on the first shift is a group leader and
II employees and, on the second shift, a group leader and 6
employees. In the taping department on the first shift is a
group leader and four employees and, on the second shift,
a group leader and eight employees. In the potting
department is a group leader and seven employees on the
first shift and a group leader and three employees on the
second shift. The metalized bench department and/or
AMS under Supervisor Hassay had no group leader over
the 17 employees on the day shift but there is a group
leader on the second shift with 4 employees.
Reporting to Bialecki are quality control technicians,
warehouse personnel, two production control clerks, two
general salesclerks, and two accounting clerks. The
makeup of that department will be discussed further in the
section dealing with the challenged ballot of Rose Kugell.
The Company, which has been in business for a number
of years and has a few employees with more than 10 years'
seniority, is owned by Robert H. Kugell, his wife, and three
daughters. The board of directors consisted of Robert H.
Kugell, his wife, and his mother, Rose Kugell. On August
23, Rose Kugell tendered her resignation as a director and,
at a special meeting of the directors on September 15, one
of the daughters was elected to replace Rose Kugell.
The union organizational effort apparently began in late
August or early September. On September 22, both leaflets
and membership authorization cards were distributed at
the plant. Brian Lowell, who had been the production
manager for about 3-1/2 years, testified that the day of that
distribution was the first day he learned of union activity at
the plant.
B. Lowell's Activities on September 22
Brian Lowell testified that the supervisors reported to
him on the morning of September 22 between 8 and 8:30
that union cards were being distributed and signed and
that the rumor was that a lot of people had signed the
cards. Lowell had a meeting with Supervisors Manners,
King, and Hassay and they discussed the distribution and
signing of the union cards and what problems or dissension
existed to provoke this reaction. Lowell was told that there
were grievances and complaints and that some of the
employees were dissatisifed. Later, Mr. Kugell came in and
they discussed the matter further with him. Thereafter,
DeSanty, the sales manager, Bialecki, Lowell, and Kugell
met and discussed the problem. Later, a meeting was held
by Lowell with the supervisors and group leaders. Some of
the group leaders said they would like Mr. Kugell to hold a
general assembly with the entire plant personnel because
they felt that some of the employees had been misled into
signing union cards. Thereafter, Kugell did hold a meeting
with the employees and discussed the Union.
In the afternoon following the Kugell meeting, Lowell
went out on the floor and talked with groups of employees
in the various departments. At one point he talked to
Carole Kelley, Sandy Krejmas, Laura Wozniak, Pat Ploof,
and Teri Ann Evans. Evans testified that Lowell told them
they had not asked any questions at the meeting with
Kugell and he thought they might have some questions.
Nobody responded. Lowell said that he wanted to know
what the girls thought of the Union. Evans said she thought
it was a good idea because they did not have any
representation and had low wages. Lowell said, "Well, why
didn't you come and tell me about those things?" She
replied that she did not know. Lowell said they could have
come and talked to him anytime they wanted. Evans said
they did not even have a suggestion box. Wozniak said that
the place where she previously worked had a gripe session
every month. Lowell replied that those were some sugges-
tions they could think about and maybe they could do
something about them. Lowell then asked Kelley what she
thought of the Union. She said she did not know and did
not know what to think about anything anymore. Lowell
said "if you think you're going to get more money from Mr.
Kugell, you probably won't because you can't get blood
out of a stone. He's doing the best he can for you people
and we're trying to do our best. If you have any more
problems, you can come and see me anytime you want. We
have an open door policy." Lowell also asked if they had
thought that they would have to pay dues and such things
to the Union.
Valerie Lavin was in the winding room when Lowell
came over and spoke with her, Barbara Rushford, Susan
Johnson, Nancy Banford, and Nancy Wheeler. Lowell
asked what they thought about the Union. Rushford said
481
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that they had asked for a lot of things in the past and never
got them. Lavin said that raises were unfair and they only
got a dime a year, that the people who were more friendly
with the Company got more. Lowell asked Wheeler if she
really thought she needed the Union. She said she did.
When asked why, she just replied she thought she needed
it.
Lowell testified that he did go out on the floor and talk to
a number of the employees that day. To some leading
questions, he stated that his supervisors told him that there
were significant problems among employees and he
decided to discuss those problems with the employees. He
said he did not recall asking employees what they thought
of the Union or why they thought it was a good idea. He
did remember saying that obviously there were some
problems and asked if they would discuss those with him.
Low wage rates and a suggestion box were items brought
up and that employees had no control over their destiny.
He said he discussed the wage structure and that the
electronics industry was very competitive and wage rates
were lower than other industries in the area. One employee
mentioned to him that Kugell's relationship with the
employees was not very good. He testified that he did not
inquire about any individuals' union activity or if they were
supporting the Union or had signed a card and that he did
not promise that the Company would take care of
problems. Lowell did admit that he was curious as to what
the employees thought about the Union.
In his direct testimony, Lowell is obviously using the
word "problems" to talk about the things which brought on
the Union and the passing out of authorization cards with
the rumor that large numbers of employees were signing
them. As he stated, he obviously was interested in why the
Union was making headway in the plant and sought to
discover the reasons for it.
I conclude and find that Lowell did approach groups of
employees and asked them what they thought of the
Union, why they thought the Union was a good idea,
whether they needed a union to get the things they wanted,
and generally was interrogating the employees to find out
what brought the Union into the plant with apparently
such a good reception. I find that these questionings and
remarks by Lowell constituted unlawful interrogation and
violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act. See Hochstetler & Sons,
Inc., 224 NLRB 39 (1976).
C. The Other Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
Valerie Lavin testified that around October 8, Lowell,
accompanied by Supervisor Guy Manners, said that her
name had been given to him in connection with blackball-
ing and threatening and organizing silent strikes. She
replied that whoever said those things was wrong and she
had never done them and asked him what blackballing
was. Lowell replied he had no time to discuss it but wanted
her to know that the next time her name was given to him
in that connection, he would file charges with the National
Labor Relations Board.
Lowell testified that he had a report from a supervisor
and a group leader that one of the employees was
distraught because she had been told that she was not
supposed to talk to group leaders. He attempted to
investigate but did not ask Lavin's side of it. He went to
Lavin's machine, told her that her name had been given to
him, that he was not accusing her of the activity but, if it
was being conducted, it had to stop and that the Company
would not tolerate blackballing and silent strikes, and that,
if it happened and anyone was found guilty of conducting
themselves in that way, the Company would bring charges
with the NLRB.
Basically, there is very little difference between the
versions of these two individuals. Whether Lavin was
accused or not of this "coventry" action, the only threat to
her, if it can be called that, is that management apparently
thought such actions were unprotected and it would bring
NLRB charges against someone urging such action. I do
not find that this is a threat of any retaliatory action which
would be violative of the Act. I conclude that this is not a
violation of Section 8(aXI) and will recommend its
dismissal.
Coleen Wissman testified that she had asked her group
leader, Pat Moore, if she could speak with Mr. Kugell and
later had a conversation in the afternoon with Kugell and
group leader Pat Moore present. She stated she wanted to
find out what kind of voting was going to be done and who
was running it. She said Kugell said there were a few things
he wanted to tell her before she asked her questions. He
showed her a mimeographed newspaper article about
Miller's Falls Company and said, if the Union came in,
they would be paying about $2 per month for dues. He
asked if she had been to any union meetings. After asking
that question, she said Kugell took it back, saying that he
could not ask her that question. Kugell did not recall
asking this question. It is alleged that this question was
illegal interrogation. If the testimony of Ms. Wissman had
not been clear that Kugell took the question back, so that
she did not feel any obligation to answer it, it possibly
could be found that the question was asked in a way to
solicit information. But here the evidence is that the
employee obviously felt that Kugell had made a slip and
retrieved it and did not want her to answer it. On the basis
of the testimony, I conclude that what occurred was not an
8(aX I) interrogation or violative of the Act and will dismiss
It.
Nellie Paulin, who had been with the Company for 12
years, testified concerning a speech Kugell gave to her
shift. She was the only witness called by the General
Counsel and testified that there were some 12 people
present and, when Kugell asked if they had any questions,
no one responded. He said that the UE was the worst
Union next to the Teamsters and wanted to organize the
people for their money and he would be a hard bargainer.
She said he said that quotas would have to be raised
because the Union would cost him a lot of money and they
would have to go home if they ran out of department work
rather than going to another department as they were
accustomed to. If a strike occurred, he had a right to hire
people from the outside and, when the strike was over, they
might find that their job was gone until there was an
opening and that, if anybody wanted to cross the picket
line and go to work, they could be fined. He stated that it
was a good place to work and he could not understand why
they felt they needed the Union. The complaint alleged as
482
WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY
violative of the Act Paulin's testimony concerning raising
quotas and changing the basis of temporarily transferring
people when the work was short.
Kugell testified he was asked to meet with the employees
and at the beginning of the meeting told them he was under
legal restraints as to what he could and could not say, that
he could not interrogate them, promise them anything, or
keep a close watch on them, that he did not want to know
whether they had been at any union meetings, and he was
not going to make any promises to them and, if they heard
him say anything like this, to stop him. Among questions
that were raised was the area of productivity and quotas.
He replied that this was mixed with the question of higher
wages and that in some cases union contracts were based
on productivity, that is that a contract could set quotas
which might result in higher wages and this was one
method of obtaining higher wages rather than by just
granting raises. Another question concerned replacing
strikers and he replied that, during an economic strike,
strikers could be permanently replaced. He said he told
them at the same time he hoped they never had a strike
because he could not afford one. Another question
concerned job descriptions and he answered that, if they
had job descriptions under a union contract, there was a
possibility that, if they ran out of work in the individual's
described job, the individual might not be able to go to
another department the way they did at present.
In weighing the testimony of Paulin and Kugell, I find
that Kugell's testimony is the more convincing. It is very
possible that Paulin's testimony is her impression of what
Kugell said without the entire context of the statements.
Her testimony consists mainly of isolated statements.
Viewing these statements in a full context and in the detail
Kugell gave in his more detailed description of the meeting,
I am inclined to credit his version of the statements and
that he avoided any threats or promises and answered these
questions in a context of what could happen, depending
upon what type of contract could be reached if the Union
succeeded in winning the election. Accordingly, I do not
find that Kugell threatened to raise quotas or cease
transferring employees if the union won the election, and I
will dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
III. THE CHALLENGES AND OBJECTIONS
A. Rose Kugell
Rose Kugell is the mother of the principal stockholder of
the Company, and from the inception of the Company's
founding and Kugell's ownership of the Company until
August or September (depending on when her resignation
was effective, i.e., the date of the resignation or when it was
accepted and a replacement elected), Rose Kugell was a
director of the Company.
William Bialecki stated that he hired Mrs. Kugell and
that she is under his supervision. He testified that the
employees under his supervision are more or less on salary
but then admitted that he did have some hourly paid
employees. Although testifying that Mrs. Kugell does not
receive any special treatment, he acknowledged that she
does not punch a timeclock, comes in at 9:30 a.m. or so
and leaves about 12:30 p.m., takes an hour off for lunch,
and comes back some time later and finishes up in the
evening, according to him occasionally as late as 6:30 or 7
p.m. due to late deliveries. He noted that her hours
fluctuated and that she is paid for 40 hours a week, even if
she does not work that amount. Her time is not recorded
anywhere, while others under his supervision are on an
hourly rate and punch timecards. One other exception is an
employee named Wickman who had previously been a
supervisor and who is on a straight salary.
Employee Ruth Caperelli testified that Rose Kugell
comes to work somewhere around 9:30 or 9:45 a.m., turns
the light switches on, and leaves around 12:30 or 1 p.m.
and is usually gone for 2 hours or more. Caperelli stated
that most of the other employees who are under Bialecki's
supervision punch timecards.
In view of Rose Kugell's relationship to the principal
stockholder of the Company, her longtime directorship of
the Company, and the special considerations apparently
given her in her job, I find that she does not have a
community of interest with the other employees and that
the challenge to her ballot should be sustained.
B. The Group Leaders
Normally, the Company has one group leader per shift,
per section, but said it was short on group leaders and did
not have one for each of the sections. Where there are no
group leaders, the supervisors take care of that department
or section as well as the other departments.
Essentially the group leaders do the same jobs in each of
the sections. They gather the materials to be worked on
prior to the start of the shift, see which orders have priority
over the others according to the completion dates on the
job orders, and assign those orders to the girls to be worked
on, keep a record of what is produced through the day, fill
in for girls who leave their machines, and, on some shifts,
group leaders work most of the time on machines.
The Union pointed to a number of signatures of group
leaders on warning tickets to employees. The group leaders
who were questioned concerning these stated that, in every
instance, the group leader was instructed by the supervisor
to prepare that warning slip, told what to put on it, and
instructed to sign it as well and, on occasions, to give such
warning slips to employees.
The Union's witnesses testified that on any number of
occasions when work in their department was slack, the
group leader would transfer them to other departments.
When the group leaders testified, they stated that they
would tell such employees to go to other departments when
work was slack, when their supervisors so instructed them.
Assuming arguendo that group leaders did not consult with
supervisors, which is contrary to the testimony, it would
not seem to be an independent exercise of judgment to tell
an employee to temporarily work in another department
that needed help when an employee had nothing to do.
The company job description for group leader is as
follows:
Position Title: Group Leader
Report To: Production Shift Supervisor
483
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Position Concept: To coordinate production activities
of a specific operation or group of operations and keep
the Shift Supervisor informed on all pertinent matters
within this area.
General Responsibility: The Group Leader will be
responsible for all training, materials flow, and produc-
tion of his operation. The Group Leader will have the
authority to carry out this function and will report any
problems impeding his ability to carry out this function
to the Shift Supervisor.
Specific Responsibilities: The Group Leader will be
responsible for, and have the authority to carry out, the
following:
I. Train all new personnel coming into the opera-
tion and report their progress to the Shift Supervisor on
a daily basis for the first two weeks. Make recommen-
dations on all new personnel to the Shift Supervisor.
2. Brief new personnel coming into the operation
on pertinent company policies, procedures and rules
(break times, lunch periods, smoking regulations, etc.)
3. Review individual production tabulations on a
daily basis and report substandard totals to Shift
Supervisor.
4. Insure production standards are met.
5. Keep a continuous materials flow to production
personnel within the operation to insure constant,
uninterrupted production.
6. Report all personnel and production problems to
the Shift Supervisor.
7. Report all insubordination incidents immediate-
ly to the Shift Supervisor for prompt action.
8. Report all absences and tardiness to the Supervi-
sor at the beginning of the shift.
9. Attend a monthly production meeting with the
Shift Supervisor and the Production Manager.
The duties, as outlined above, would seem to be those of
a leadman with little or no authority and with minimal
discretion.
When employees were made group leaders, they received
a 15-cent-an-hour increase, but the pay rate of group
leaders varied from $2.55 to $3 per hour and seemed to be
based on their length of service with the Company. In some
instances, the group leaders are making less than other
employees in their department or section.
A number of the Union's witnesses corroborated that
group leaders did not make decisions on requests for time
off or for sick leave but consulted supervisors who
thereafter talked to the individual employees. They stated
that there were emergency times when employees were ill
and would tell a group leader and leave, that there was no
company policy on making a person stay when an
emergency existed.
On their recommendations concerning employees, there
was inconsistent evidence as to the effectiveness of such
recommendations, but there appeared to be independent
supervisory investigations made. Respondent considered
the Union's position about group leaders as a breach of
faith since the consent agreement included them in the
unit.
Summing up, the group leaders are in effect lead persons,
with some training or more experience than other employ-
ees, who perform some extra duties and are paid a certain
percentage more than most of the employees in that
particular section. The position is quasi-supervisory but has
little or no room for independent judgment and is without
any authority to hire, fire, or effectively recommend the
same or transfers.
I conclude and find that the group leaders are not
supervisory personnel within the meaning of the Act and
that the challenges to their ballots should be overruled and
their ballots opened and counted.
C. The Objections to the Election
Having found that Respondent committed an 8(a)(l)
violation prior to the filing of the petition by the Union in
this case and that Respondent has not committed any
8(aXI) violations following the filing of that petition, and
there being no opposition to the Union's motion to
withdraw the objections, I grant that motion.
Ir. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, and
therein found to constitute unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act, occurring in
connection with Respondent's business operations as set
forth above in section I, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by the unfair labor practices set forth above, I
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and be
ordered to cease and desist from violating the Act in the
above manner and that it post an appropriate notice so
informing its employees and that thereby the policies of the
Act will be effectuated.
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
unlawfully interrogating its employees around September
22, 1976.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case
considered as a whole, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
484
WESCO ELECTRICAL COMPANY
ORDER 2
The Respondent, J. K. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco
Electrical Company, Greenfield, Massachusetts, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from unlawfully interrogating its
employees.
2. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act,
Respondent shall:
(a) Post at its plants, warehouses, and offices copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said
notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region I, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RECOMMENDED that complaint
allegations 8(c), (d), and (e) be dismissed.
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and the recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.47 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a hearing in which the Company, the Union and
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board participated and offered evidence, it has been found
that we violated the Act. We have been ordered to post this
notice and to abide by what we say in this notice.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully question our employees
about their attitudes toward or reasons for supporting
union organizational efforts.
WE WILL NOT in the same or any similar manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the
Act.
Our employees are free to become or remain members of
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America
(UE), Local No. 259.
J. K. ELECTRONICS, INC.,
D/B/A WESCO ELECTRICAL
COMPANY
485