Queen City Furniture Co., Inc.

In the Matter of QUEEN CITY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION or AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 10-RC-736.-Decided December 15, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Shally O. Wise, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees 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 appropriate unit : The Petitioner requests a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Gadsden, Alabama, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. The Employer's operations are under the general supervision of John Hinds, Jr., vice president of the corporation. There is no for- mal departmental set-up in the plant, but its operations are divided into well defined stages. Production commences in the millroom where framework for furniture is cut. The frame room puts together the various parts by doweling, glueing, and nailing, except for bedroom suites and other case products, which are assembled in the cabinet room. The paint room is responsible for finishing the assembled frames, and the picker and sewing rooms prepare the upholstery which is used with the finishel frames. There are in all approximately 45 employees. 87 NLRB No. 85. 634 QUEEN CITY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 63.5 Henry M. Hollingsworth and William K. Sparry: Hollingsworth is a millwright whom the Petitioner would exclude as a supervisor. Although none of the parties seeks to exclude Sparry, a question is raised by the record as to his supervisory status. The Employer as- serts that it has no supervisors at the plant other than John Hinds, Jr., who supervises all plant operations. Hollingsworth has been employed by the Employer for 20 years and is a minor stockholder in the Employer's business. He is regu- larly paid for a 55 -hour week, though he may not work that number of hours. He opens the plant every morning, passes out and collects time cards, and carries out the instructions of John Hinds , Jr., con- cerning the work to be done. Although he has no authority to hire or discharge employees , he reports faulty work of employees to John Hinds, Jr., and carries out Hinds ' orders as to suspension or discharge of such employees . In the absence of both John Hinds, Jr., and John Hinds, Sr., the Employer's president, Hollingsworth alone has the authority to let employees off for short periods of time. Sparry is a machine operator . He sets up machines in the millroom, instructs the employees in the use of these machines , lays out work therein pursuant to the orders of John Hinds, Jr., and also does pro- duction work himself. The Employer testified that frequently both John Hinds, Jr., and John Hinds, Sr., are absent from the plant on week ends , and that during such periods, Hollingsworth directs plant operations on Fri- days, and Sparry directs plant operations on Saturdays.' During these days when Hollingsworth and Sparry direct plant operations, they, by necessity, exercise the privileges and responsibilities of super- visors. Under all the circumstances, including the number of em- ployees and the absence of other intermediate supervision between the Employer's vice president and the production employees, we believe that 'Hollingsworth and Sparry occupy positions in the plant by virtue of which their interests are closely aligned with those of management. We shall exclude them from the unit as supervisors within the meaning of the Act.2 W. G. Hayden is a cloth cutter whom the Petitioner would also ex- clude as a supervisor. Hayden was once foreman , but does not now have the authority effectively to recommend the hiring or discharge of employees. He trains new employees in the sewing room, but I There is conflict in the testimony both as to the frequency of the exercise by Hollings- worth and Sparry of directive authority over the operations of the plant , and as to whether Sparry in fact exercises such authority . On the basis of the entire record , we are per- suaded , as testified by the Employer, that Hinds, Jr., and Hinds , Sr., are frequently absent from the plant on week ends , and that the degree of supervisory authority possessed by Sparry is little, if at all, less than that of Hollingsworth. 2 Cf. The Texas Company, Salem Gasoline Plant, 85 NLRB 1211. 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spends the majority of his time upholstering furniture. Although his rate of pay is 40 percent more than that of the other employees in the sewing room, it would appear that the basis for the higher wage is the nature of the production duties he performs. We find that W. G. Hayden is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act; we shall include him.3 E. L. Mayben and Lester Johnson are two employees designated as watchmen by the Employer, whom the Petitioner would exclude from the unit. The Employer contends that they should be included as they spend the majority of their time doing production and mainte- nance work. Both of these men operate production machines, fire the boilers, and clean the plant. The record indicates that they spend only a few minutes out of each hour in making the rounds of the plant as watchmen. Under these circumstances we find that they are pri- marily production or maintenance employees, and not guards within the meaning of the Act.4 We shall include them in the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Gadsden, Alabama, plant,5 excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act,e constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses 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 reinstated 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 bargaining, by Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O. 3 A. J. Sirus Products Corporation, 83 NLRB 99. 4 Indiana Desk Company, Inc., 82 NLRB 103. 5 Including as production and maintenance employees , W. G. Hayden , E. L. Mayben, and Lester Johnson. Excluding as supervisors , Henry M. Hollingsworth and William B. Sparry.