The Ruberoid Co.

In the Matter of THE RUBEROID COMPANY and FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMBRICA AND CHAPTER 119, FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Case No. 13-1-3084.-Decided Apr=il 16,1946 JIes.srs. Han non and Evans, by Charles F. Evans, of New York City, for the Company. AIr. Allen Nelson, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union. Mr. Harry K. Ehrlich, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF TILE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of America and Chapter 119, Foreman's Association of America, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of The Ruberoid Company, Joliet, Illinois, herein called the Company, the National Labor Rela- tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Herman J. DeKoven, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on September 6, 7, and 10, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition on three grounds. The Trial Examiner referred these motions 10 the Board. For reasons stated hereinafter these motions are denied. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Ruberoid Company is a New Jersey corporation with its prin- cipal offices at New York City, and with 12 plants located in various parts of the United States. At the plant involved in this proceeding, 67 N. L. R. B., No. 49. 692148-46-vol. 67--24 353 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which is located at Joliet, Illinois, the Company is engaged in the manufacture of building materials, consisting principally of roofing, siding, insulation, tar, creosote, oil, naphthalene, and dry felt. During the past year, the Company, in its operations at the Joliet plant, pur- chased raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped to its Joliet plant from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the Company produced goods at its Joliet, Illinois, plant valued in excess of $50,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Foreman's Association of America and Chapter 119, Foreman's Association of America, unaffiliated, is a labor organization, admit- ting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of any of its supervisory em- ployees on the grounds that the supervisors sought by the Union perform managerial functions and are not employees within the mean- ing of the Act. A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of em- ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE KNIT The Union generally seeks a unit composed of the superintendents of the production and maintenance departments (roofing mill, felt mill, reduction and tar, mechanical, and power) and the plant chemist, the foremen of the production and maintenance departments and the chief electrician, the supervisors in the production and maintenance depart- ments, and a miscellaneous group of employees discussed below but excluding general superintendent, works superintendent, Director of Industrial Relations, Industrial Relations Assistant, purchasing agent, assistant purchasing agent, office manager and planning super- intendent, Chief Forester Western Division, Havana Wood Depot I The Trial Examiner reported that the Union submitted 34 cards bearing the names of 28 employees in the alleged appropriate unit There are approximately 41 employees in the snit THE RUBEROID COMPANY 355 foreman, and the Chicago warehouse supervisor. The Company con- tends that the unit claimed is not appropriate upon the grounds that supervisory employees are not employees within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (3) of the Act and that they are a part of management. The status of foremen and comparable supervisors under the Act has been considered ii. a number of Board and Federal court decisions; the courts have concurred in the Board's holding that they are "employees" within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the super- visory employees involved herein are "employees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.2 Upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, we are of the opinion that the supervisory employees involved herein do not have the deter- minative voice in the formulation of company policies, the planning of production, the handling of the Company's labor relations, or the hire and discharge of employees, as to constitute such an integral part of management that they may not be segregated therefrom and recog- nized as a separate group for the purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, we find that such supervisory employees may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company generally does not oppose the specific composition of the unit, but contends that the cost and budget supervisor should be excluded therefrom; the Union would include him. The evidence shows that the cost and budget supervisor has no employees under his direction and consequently has no supervisory authority within our usual definition of that term. We shall exclude him from the unit. The record also shows that some doubt exists as to the supervisory status of the following employees whom the Union would include in the unit : Head timekeeper: The head timekeeper spends approximately 10 minutes a day directing the work of two employees and the rest of the day performing the same timekeeping functions as they perform. The evidence shows that she has no supervisory authority over them within our customary definition of that term. Consequently, we shall exclude her from the unit. Draftsman and enineeritzq assistant: The evidence shows that the draftsman and engineering assistant prepares blue prints of mechani- cal equipment used in the production process. He also prepares time sheets of the number of hours worked by employees in the mechanical department and the jobs to which the time is to be charged as well as run errands for the superintendent of the mechanical department. He 7 See Matter of The ?Midland Steel Products Company, Parish & Bingham Division, 65 N L R B 997 See also Matter of Jones & McLaughlin Steel Corporation , Vesta- Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N L R B 386: Matter of Simmons Company, 65 N. L R B 984: Matter of L 4 Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N L. R B 298, and Matter of The B F I3oodiieh Company, 65 N L R B 294, and cases cited therein 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD does not supervise the work of any employee. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the unit. We find that the Superintendents of the roofing mill, felt mill, reduc- tion and tar, mechanical, and power departments, the plant chemist, roofing mill foreman, warehouse and shipping foreman, felt mill fore- man, felt mill special foreman, mechanical foreman, powerhouse fore- man, chief electrician, roofing mill supervisors, raw material receiving supervisor, felt mill receiving supervisor, reduction and tar plant supervisor, machine shop supervisor, felt mill mechanical supervisor, construction supervisor, miscellaneous supervisor, shipping supervi- sors, water treatment man and supervisor, planning and scheduling supervisor, chief rigger and mason, stores keeper, and felt mill receiv- ing clerk, but excluding the general superintendent, works superin- tendent, Director of Industrial Relations, Industrial Relations Assist- ant, purchasing agent, assistant purchasing agent, office manager and planning superintendent, Chief Forester Western Division, Havana Wood Depot foreman, the Chicago warehouse supervisor, cost and budget supervisor, head timekeeper, and draftsmen and engineering assistant, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Ruberoid Com- pany, Joliet, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec- tions 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this THE RIIBEROID COMPANY 357 Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay- roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Foreman's Association of America, and Chapter 119, Foreman's Association of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, I am constrained to dissent from the majority opinion in this case.