Shenango Pottery Co.

In the Matter of STIENANGO POTTERY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF OPERATIVE POTTERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 6-RC-372.-Decided July, 29, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held before Eugene E. Threadgill, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and the United Steel Workers of America, Local No. 3125, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations, claim- ing 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: I These findings are based on evidence showing that the purpose here of the Petitioner and the Intervenor is to represent employees of the Employer with respect to wages, hours, and conditions of employment. We therefore find no 'merit to the respective claims of these two unions that the other is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2 We find no merit to the contentions of the Intervenor and the Employer that a cur- rently existing contract between them bars the present petition. On June 19, 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a contract to terminate on June 19, 1949. On June 16, 1949, the parties negotiated a new contract to supersede the 1947 contract but at the time of the hearing the new contract had not yet been signed. The instant petition was filed on April 14, 1949. As the 1947 contract has expired it does not con- stitute a bar to the present proceedings . Nor can it validly be claimed that the 1949 Contract is a bar because the present petition was filed 2 months before it was negotiated. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 82. 490 SHENANGO POTTERY COMPANY 491 All production and maintenance employees, including working supervisors,3 but excluding watchmen,4 medical, technical, and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain- ing, by National Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL .5 The record shows that these employees, notwithstanding their title, are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. They spend the greater part of their time performing manual labor with the employees in their respective crews. They have no authority to hire, discharge, or discipline other employees or effectively to recommend such action. Their directions to employees consist merely of passing on the instructions of their respec- tive department foremen. All parties have agreed to the inclusion of the working super- visors, 4 We have excluded the watchmen from the unit, although all parties agreed to their inclusion because, as we stated in our decision in Matter of C. V. Hill and Company, 76 N, L. It. B. 158, Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, as amended, prohibits the Board from including in a unit with other employees any individual who has a duty to protect the property of the Employer against theft whether by employees or other persons. The rec- ord is here clear that the watchmen have such a duty. 5 We have not placed the name of the Intervenor on the ballot because it is not in compli- ance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.