Gellman Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of GELLMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and DISTRICT No. 102, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 13-RCD24.Decided November 30,1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before John P. von Rohr, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain 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 parties stipulated that the appropriate unit consist of "All production and maintenance employees of the Company in its First Street plant and in plant number 2, excluding office and clerical and professional employees, guards and supervisors." The Employer, however, contends that eight individuals should be excluded from the unit as supervisors and that five should be excluded as watchmen. The Petitioner and the Intervenor contend that none of the eight indi- viduals is a supervisor, and that the five watchmen have predominantly janitorial duties and should therefore be included in the unit. The alleged supervisors : Cudworth, Andresson, and Wessel are classified respectively as mill- wright, screw machine operator, and milling machine operator. Until a substantial lay-off of employees several months ago, each of these 87 NLRB No. 41. 292 GELLMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 293 men had 3 or more employees to assist him. Since the lay-off, how- ever, each of these men works alone, except that, on infrequent occa- sions, Cudworth is assisted in heavy work by a helper from one of the other departments. Calloway is classified as a painter, and has charge of all painting and enamelling in the plant. Although, before the lay-off, he had 12 employees to assist him, he now has only 1, and he spends 90 percent of his time working with paint himself. The Em- ployer's witness testified that Calloway could recommend discharge or lay-off "in a mild form," but he was unable to testify as to whether or not Calloway could recommend promotion. Gates, a toolmaker, works with 4 other employees. There were, before the lay-off, as many as 16 employees in this department. Gates has no authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or promote, or effectively recommend such action, or to assign work. When the foreman of this depart- ment left recently Gates was offered the position, but he refused. The foreman has not yet been replaced. Since there has been no foreman in this department, Gates as the senior employee in the department, is left in charge on the infrequent occasions when Peterson, the master mechanic, is away from the plant. Sanders and Lenser, classified respectively as turren lathe operator and milling machine operator, work under the supervision of Foreman Gannon, who is responsible for the work of 15 employees. As a re- sult of the lay-off, the employees who work with Sanders were reduced from 7 to 3, and those who work with Lenser were reduced from 20 to about 8. Sanders and Lenser spend most of their time in manual work, but also have the duty of reassigning work which is assigned initially by Gannon. Neither has authority to recommend hiring or discharge, nor to grant time off, but each may recommend a pro- motion or an increase in pay for his fellow workers. These recom- mendations are made to Gannon, who in turn makes the recommenda- tion to Peterson, who determines what action to take. Hilda Russel is classified as an assembler, and works in the final assembly and in- spection department. Foreman Frymark supervises this department, which now consists of 3 women, including Russel, and 11 men, but which, before the lay-off, consisted of 11 women and 19 men. The men assemble the machines, and the women put on the electric plugs and do the wiring. Russel inspects the work of the women, and also puts on decalcomanias and performs other hand work which con- sumes 80 to 90 percent of her time. She is paid at a higher rate than the other women, and she can make recommendations that they be granted time off or that additional help be obtained to do the work. The Employer took the position that future increases in force, if made, might restore to these alleged supervisors a large measure of 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the responsibilities they exercised before the lay-off, when their re- spective departments were much larger. The president of the Em- ployer testified, however, that he does not anticipate that a substantial number of employees will be rehired in the foreseeable future. We are convinced, from the entire record, that none of the eight individ- uals in question now possesses supervisory authority within the mean- ing of the Act. The three men who have no employees working under them manifestly have no one to supervise., Nor is the painter, with only one helper, a supervisory The four others spend practically all their time in physical work, performing generally the same kind of work that is performed by the employees in their respective de- partments. Because of longer experience or superior skill, some of the four may, on occasion, reassign work or transmit routine direc- tions. Some of them may also make recommendations to department heads affecting employees in their departments, which recommenda- tions are considered by the department heads, but have no final au- thority.3 The departments in which these people work are so small. that it is highly improbable that intermediate supervisors are re- quired, and the possibility of the departments being enlarged is -remote and speculative. In general, the individuals in question have the authority to supervise employees in their departments only to the extent that such supervision is usually exercised by experienced employees over those who are less skilled. Accordingly, we shall include all eight individuals in the unit.4 The watchmen : Five employees are classified on the pay roll as watchmen. They work only at night and during week ends, when the plant is not in operation. In the course of their hourly rounds they punch the watch clocks at various stations throughout the plant. This consumes about 25 minutes of each hour. They also are responsible for the outside property of the Employer, from which material has frequently been carried off by persons scaling the fences or forcing the gates in the foundry or quonset hut area. In their spare time they are expected to occupy themselves with sweeping, checking boiler pressure, carry- ing out cinders, answering the telephone, and similar tasks. The record does not show how much time is thus spent. The Employer maintains that the duties of these employees are primarily to safeguard the Employer's plant and property. The Petitioner contends that, as less than 50 percent of each hour is occu- ' San Antonio Machine et Supply Company, 85 NLRB 143. 2 Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 83 NLRB 187 ; General Beverages Company, 85 NLRB 696. 3 The only evidence in the record of such recommendations having been effective per- tained to incidents occurring prior to the reduction in force. 4 Goldblatt Brothers, 86 NLRB 914 ; United States Gypsum Company, 85 NLRB 162. GELLMAN MANUFACTURING. COMPANY 295 pied in making the rounds of the watch stations, these employees must be classified as janitors. However, they have guard duties in addi- tion to punching the watch clocks. Accordingly, we find that these employees are watchmen within the meaning of the Act, and they will therefore be excluded from the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its plant at First Street and at plant number 2, both in Rock Island, Illinois, excluding office, clerical, and professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 8 (b) of the Act. 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 supervision 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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also ex- cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for pur- poses of collective bargaining, by District No. 102, International Association of Machinists.