ITT Lighting Fixtures

ITT LIGHTING FIXTURES 441 ITT Lighting Fixtures, Division of ITT Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Petitioner. Case 26-RC- 5908 May 9, 1980 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND TRUESDALE Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Regional Director for Region 26, an election by secret ballot was conducted on Febru- ary 16, 1979,' among employees in the unit found appropriate therein. At the conclusion of the elec- tion, the parties were duly served with a tally of ballots which showed that 175 votes were cast for, and 153 against, the Petitioner, with 34 challenged ballots 2 which were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On February 21, the Employer timely filed objections3 to conduct af- fecting the results of the election and, on February 28, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear- ing on Challenged Ballots and Objections. After a hearing on the challenges and objections, the Hearing Officer issued a report and recommen- dations in which he found that the 31 group lead- ers were statutory supervisors and recommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained; that employees Bramlitt and Cox were plant cleri- cals and recommended the challenges to their bal- lots be overruled; 4 and that the Employer's objec- tions were without merit and recommended that they be overruled. As a consequence of his forego- ing disposition of the various issues he recommend- ed that the Petitioner be certified. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner timely filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report. All dates hereinafter are in 1979, unless otherwise indicated. 2 Because of the conflicting evidence presented at the pre-decision hearing concerning the supervisory status of the Employer's 31 group leaders, the Regional Director in his Decision and Direction of Election allowed the group leaders to vote subject to challenge. As a result, the Board agent at the election challenged the ballots of these 31 group lead- ers Additionally, a ruling by the Board agent that a certain ballot was void was contested by the Employer, and the Petitioner challenged the ballots of employees Curtis Bramlitt and Janet Cox on the grounds that they were office clerical employees. a The Employer objected to the Regional Director's failure to find, in his Decision and Direction of Election, that the 31 group leaders were supervisors within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act and to his ruling that they be allowed to vote subject to challenge. Additionally, the Em- ployer alleged as objectionable certain conduct engaged in by its group leaders on behalf of the Petitioner which included threatening aind induc- ing employees to ote for the Petitioner 4 As indicated above, the Board agent declared a ballot void The Hearing Officer agreed but also sustained a challenge to the ballol. The Regional Director adopted the Hearing Officer's findings on the oidel ballot but overruled the challenge 249 NLRB No. 61 On July 10, the Regional Director issued his Supplemental Decision and Certification of Repre- sentative. Contrary to the Hearing Officer, he found Cox to be an office clerical employee and, accordingly, sustained the challenge to her ballot.5 He further found that the record evidence pro- duced at the hearing on challenges and objections was sufficeint to establish the supervisory status of only 116 of the group leaders but was insufficient and contradictory with respect to the status of the remaining 20 group leaders. Nevertheless, in view of his finding that Cox should be excluded from the unit, he concluded that the unresolved chal- lenges to the ballots of the remaining 20 group leaders could not affect the election results 7 and, inasmuch as he agreed with the Hearing Officer that the Employer's objections were without merit, he issued a certification of representive. Thereafter, on August 3, the Employer filed with the Board a request for review of the Regional Director's sup- plemental decision.8 On November 21 the Board granted the request, but only with respect to the issues of whether Cox was a plant or office clerical employee and whether the remaining 20 group leaders were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Board denied review with respect to the other issues raised by the Employer. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Regional Director's supplemental decision in light of the exceptions for which review was granted and the parties' briefs and hereby adopts the Re- gional Director's findings and conclusions as modi- fied below. Status of Employee Cox Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that Cox is a plant clerical rather than an office clerical employee and should be included in the bargaining unit. Thus, the record establishes, and the Regional Director found, that Cox, who is classified as a traffic control clerk, spends approximately 75 per- ' The Petitioner did not except to the Hearing Officer's finding con- cerning the challenge to Bramlill's ballot. 6 The following group leaders were found by the Regional Director to be statutory supervisors: Christine Brown, Lonnie Edlin. Richard Hayes, Carolyn Smith, Billie Hamilton, Marie Mason, Shirely Spencer. Gilbert Vickers, Rebecca Jo Hamilton, Bobby Hobbs, and Joan Carsonll 7 Thus the vote would he 175 for the Union, 153 against, with Bram- lilt's valid ballot uncounted and 20 unresolved challenges T Ihe Employer requested review of the Regional Director's failure to find that all group leaders were supervisors. to his finding that Cox was an office clerical employee, to the finding concerning the void ballot, and to the objections Additionally, the Employer requested that the Board correct the Regional Director's failure to direct that Bramlitt's chal- lenged ballot he opened and counted ITT LIGHTING FIXTURES 441 442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cent of her working time processing inventory work which includes initiating and/or recording everything done by the warehouse employees, who form part of the bargaining unit. Cox works in an office separate from that of the Employer's other clericals. Her office has a sliding glass window through which she and warehouse personnel, who frequently include unit employees, exchange orders, bills of lading, stock tickets, and other items. The record further establishes that, on alter- nate days, Cox goes out to the warehouse floor, where other unit employees work, to pick up stock tickets. From the above facts, it is clear to us that Cox's duties are an integral part of the warehouse oper- ation and that said duties frequently bring her into contact with unit employees. Additionally, Cox re- ceives the same intermediate supervision, works the same hours, and shares the same facilities as ware- house employees. Moreover, the record is void of any evidence to indicate that Cox has any signifi- cant contact with other officer clerical employees. We further note that the Petitioner and the Em- ployer had agreed that traffic control clerks, which is Cox's classification, should be included in the bargaining unit. In view of the above, we find that Cox is a plant, i.e., here a warehouse, clerical em- ployee and is included in the unit. Accordingly, we overrule the challenge to her ballot. Status of the Group Leaders We agree with the Regional Director that the 11 group leaders (see fn. 6, supra) are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. However, contrary to the Regional Director, we find that there is sufficient uncontradicted evidence in the record to establish the supervisory status of group leaders Jeanette Willington, Sammie Wil- liams, Barry Williams, and John McNeely. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Quality Control Supervisor Lyvonne Young, group leader Millington spends approximately 30 percent of her working time doing quality control inspec- tions and tests. The remainder of her time is spent making sure that the 18 employees in the quality control department are working and that their equipment is set up for testing and inspecting and generally in meeting their everyday work needs. As the sole group leader in that department, Mill- ington trains employees and corrects their work. Furthermore, while she lacks the authority to hire, fire, promote, or grant wage increases, she never- theless possesses the authority to adjust employee grievances, approve overtime, grant time off, reas- sign employees to different work areas, issue oral warnings, and initial timecards. The record reveals that Millington exercises a certain amount of inde- pendent judgment in the performance of her above- described duties. On the basis of the above facts, we conclude that Millington is a supervisor as de- fined in the Act and therefore sustain the challenge to her ballot. Similarly, the Employer's raw material ware- house foreman, Lee Shepherd, testified without contradiction that group leaders Sammie and Barrie Williams and John McNeely, who respec- tively are in charge of the inside warehouse day- shift employees, receiving area employees and inside warehouse night-shift employees, also pos- sess the authority to adjust grievances, issue oral warnings, grant overtime, initial timecards, grant time off to employees within their own depart- ments, and reassign employees to different work areas as the need arises. Furthermore, these group leaders are required to enforce the Employer's rules regarding safety and to monitor the abuse of coffeebreaks and restroom privileges; depending on the seriousness of the violation, they may, at their discretion, issue oral warnings to employees. Thus, it is clear from the above that these group leaders are required to exercise a certain degree of inde- pendent judgment in the performance of their duties. Accordingly, on the basis of the above facts, we find group leaders Sammie Williams, Barrie Williams, and John McNeely to be supervi- sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and shall therefore sustain the challenges to their ballots. As a consequence of our foregoing findings there remain only 16 unresolved challenged ballots and the as yet uncounted ballots of Cox and Bramlitt. However, in view of the Union's having received a 22-vote majority of the ballots counted, these 18 ballots cannot affect the election results and, conse- quently, further action with respect to them is un- necessary. We therefore, affirm and adopt the Cer- tification of Representative issued in favor of the Petitioner by the Regional Director in his supple- mental decision.