Worthington Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1845 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

MASON-NEILAN 1845
that on, April 15, 1957, Petitioner filed a petition for a separate unit
of the hostesses in the Central division, but on May 2, 1957, withdrew
the same without prejudice. In its brief filed herein, Petitioner states
that it seeks "a systemwide" unit of hostesses.
Since the representation question as to the hostesses on Continental
Pacific Lines was settled by consent of the parties, and since there is
no petition before the Board seeking representation of the hostesses
in either the Central division or Continental Bus System, we must
construe Petitioner's position in Case No. 21-RC-4827 as desiring a
separate unit of the hostesses employed in the Western division.12 The
Employer indicated in its brief its agreement that such a unit is
appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All hostesses employed in the Employer's Continental Western
Lines, Los Angeles, California, excluding all other employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 21-RC-4846.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
12 If its position has been misconstrued , Petitioner may upon proper notice to the
Regional Director before the election withdraw its petition without prejudice
Mason-Neilan, Division of Worthington Corporation 1 and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile , Aircraft, Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America, UAW, AFL, CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 1-RC-5127. February 28, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph C. Barry, 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- member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds .2
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
2 The Employer's contention as the adequacy of the Petitioner's compliance with Sec-
tion 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act involves an administrative matter not cognizable in
this proceeding See Desaulmeis and Company, 115 NLRB 1025, and Standard Cigar
Company, 117 NLRB 852 Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner
is in compliance Accordingly, we deny the Employer 's motions to dismiss because of
noncompliance
119 NLRB No. 226.
1846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act?
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.4
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 parties are in substantial agreement as to the appropriate-
ness of a production and maintenance unit, but there are issues as to
the inclusion or exclusion of the following :
Shipping department clerks : Although the Employer stipulated
that 1 of the clerks is a plant clerical, it would exclude 2 others as
office clerical employees. The Petitioner takes no position. These
two employees whose desks are located in the shipping department
perform work of general clerical nature related to the shipping depart-
ment and shipping department employees. They are under the
supervision of the shipping department foreman, work the same hours
as the shipping department employees and do not interchange with
the office clerical employees. In view of the foregoing, we find that
these employees are plant clerical employees and we shall include
them in the unit.
Summer student employees: The Employer contends that the
students it hires each summer are seasonal employees and eligible to
vote at any time, whether actually working or not; but the Petitioner
argues that they are ineligible unless actually working during the
ligibility period established by the Board. The Employer hires
about 15 high school and college students during the summer sea-
son for the purpose of eventually developing desirable full-time
employees. Each summer the Employer contacts acceptable students
who have worked the previous summer and offers them summer
employment. A substantial number of these students accept summer
positions again and some have eventually taken full-time employment.
Assuming that these summer employees as a group have a reason-
able expectancy of permanent employment sufficient to warrant their
inclusion in the unit, the question still remains as to whether they are
eligible to vote in the election herein which will be conducted prior to
the summer when students may be rehired. As the Board rules
require that, in order to vote, an individual must be employed and
working on the established eligibility date, unless the individual was
absent for one of the reasons set out in the Direction of Election, we
3 As the record shows that, during the past year, the Employer shipped in excess of
$50,000 worth of goods out of the State, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
* As the Petitioner exists for the purpose of bargaining on behalf of employees we find
that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
MASON-NEILAN 1847
find that the student summer employees are ineligible to participate
in the election.'
Sub foremen and the AA machinist: The Employer contends that
the subforemen and the AA machinist are supervisors and would
exclude them from the unit . The Petitioner takes no position.
All the subforemen and the AA machinist work under the immediate
supervision of the departmental foremen who are salaried and are
admitted supervisors . The subforemen and the AA machinist are
hourly paid , work the same shifts and receive the same benefits as
the other employees . They do not attend supervisors ' meetings or
participate in the management wage setting program.
The subforemen in the shipping department , the brass department,
the maintenance department, the testing and fabricating department,
the inspection department, the valve test department, and the valve
assembly department , all of whom work on the day shift , and the
AA machinist who works on the night shift in the maintenance
department , do not possess authority to change employees ' status
even when they sporadically substitute for their respective foremen.
Further, although they transmit work orders or assignments to the
employees , they do so only as conduits for their foremen and they
do not responsibly direct employees . In view of the foregoing and
as they do not otherwise possess or exercise statutory authority of
supervisors we find that they are not supervisors as defined in the
Act and shall include them in the unit.
There remains for consideration the subforemen on the night shift
in the shipping and iron departments, and the subforeman on the day
shift in the snagging department.
The night shift shipping department sub foreman: This employee
is the primary instrument of authority in the department . He trans-
mits orders to and instructs employees , and receives employees ' requests
for privileges which he approves and forwards to the foreman. He
has in the past effectively recommended an employee's discharge. The
night shift iron department subforeman, who is responsible for the
operation of the department 50 percent of the time, inspects the work
of the turret lathe operators , instructs new employees and sets up
machinery. He may report and has effectively reported to the fore-
man employees' adaptability and has been consulted by the foreman
on employees ' performance . He has authority to shut down a ma-
chine if the work is being improperly performed . The day shift
snagging department sub f oreman assigns work, gives instructions as
to how the work is to be performed and is responsible to the foreman
for the work performance of the employees in the department. He
also instructs the night shift subforeman as to the work to be per-
5 Grinnell Pajama Corp , 108 NLRB 289 , at 291, footnote 6; Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co,
107 NLRB 1327 , 1329-1330 ; Barry Controls, Inc., 113 NLRB 26.
1848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
f
formed during the night shift. As it appears that the aforementioned
three subforemen responsibly direct employees and/or effectively
recommend concerning the status of employees, we find that they are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude them
from the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's 63
Nahatan Street, Norwood, Massachusetts, pressure regulators and
control equipment plant, including timekeepers, the shipping depart-
ment clerks; the subforemen in the day shift shipping department,
the day shift brass department, the day shift maintenance department,
the day shift testing and fabricating department, the day shift inspec-
tion department, the day shift valve test department, and the day
shift valve assembly department subforemen, and the AA machinist;
but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
the subforemen in the night shift shipping department, the night shift
iron department, and the day shift snagging department and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Gluck Bros., Inc.' and Local Union 621, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America,2 Petitioner
Gluck Bros., Inc. and United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO,3 Petitioner. Cases Nos. 10-RC-4004 and 10-RC-4007.
February 28, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before John H. Fenton,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .4
'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
3 The Board has been notified by the AFL-CIO that the latter deems the Teamsters'
certificate of affiliation has been revoked by convention action The identification of the
petitioning Union is amended accordingly.
8 Local 2888, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO,
herein called the Carpenters , intervened in Case No . 10-RC-4007 on the basis of a show-
ing"of interest.
4 The Employer ' s contention as to the adequacy of compliance of United Furnituie
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Furniture Workers, with Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h) of the Act involves an administrative matter not cognizable in this proceeding
See Deseulniers and Company, 115 NLRB 1025, and Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB
119 NLRB No. 236.