Montgomery Steel Products Corp.

MONTGOMERY STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. 225 they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted • from publication in this volume.] MONTGOMERY STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER PENN-OHIO STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos..-RC-1030 and 4-RC-1033. May;?, 1951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Ramey Donovan, 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 these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.] 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employers. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : Case No. 4-RC-1033 The parties in this case are in agreement as to the appropriate unit except that the Petitioner seeks to include about 13 maintenance em- ployees whom the Employer would exclude. The Employer conducts its operations in a Naval Industrial Reserve plant which it leases from the Department of the Navy. The Navy, however, retains a portion of the plant for its own use and under its control. The maintenance men whose placement is in dispute are i Federal Dairy Co., Inc, 91 NLRB 638; Stantslaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618 94 NLRB No. 42. 951S41-52-vol 94-16 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employed to keep the Navy's part of the plant in good repair and ready to operate if needed. Their work consists primarily of cleaning, painting, and oiling. Though in the hiring process these men are screened by the Employer's personnel department, the final decision to hire them is made by the resident engineer, who is a regular employee of the Navy. The resident engineer, with the help of one foreman, supervises the naval maintenance men. Occasionally the Employer requests the resident engineer for the loan of some of the naval main- tenance men to perform duties in connection with the Employer's operations. Except when the men are so employed-which is about 10 to 15 percent of the time-the Employer has no jurisdiction or control over them. The naval maintenance men are paid by check from the Employer who, is thereafter reimbursed by the Navy. The wage rates of the naval maintenance men are similar in some categories to those of the Employer's regular maintenance men but differ in others. The naval maintenance group operates at 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, as con- trasted with the Employer's schedule of 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week. The record indicates that on an occasion when certain increases in the form of a bonus system were put into effect for the Employer's employees, the naval maintenance men did not receive the bonus. But they did receive a 10-cent an hour increase when a similar increase was granted to the employees of the Employer. However, this was not automatic but rather required special authority from the Navy to the resident engineer to effect the increase. On the basis of all the above facts we conclude that the naval maintenance men are employees of the Navy rather than of the Em- ployer. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit.2 We find the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer at its Birdsboro, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding naval maintenance men,3 office clerical employees, `Tuards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Case No. 4-RC-1032 In accord with the stipulation of the parties, we find that the fol- lowing employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 2 Phillips Chemical Company, 90 NLRB No 76. The naval maintenance men shall be deemed to be in the unit while they are on loan to the Employer and are doing the work of employees included in the unit for the purpose of bargaining in relation to such work. Only those, however, who are detailed by the Navy to the Employer on a regular basis and for a substantial portion of their time shall be eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed. 3 See footnote 2. E. W. SCRIPPS COMPANY 227 All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Birdsboro, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding office clerical employees, ,guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this -volume.] E. W. SCRIPPS COMPANY and CINCINNATI NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 9, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO. Case No. 9-CA-285. May 3, 1951 Decision and Order On January 18, 1951, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup- porting briefs? The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner .at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modi- fications.3 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's disposition of the alleged supervisors, 4 except as to the managing editor of The Kentucky Post. The Trial Examiner found that this managing editor is a supervisor. The evidence is not adequate to support this finding. It is agreed that he is not the equivalent of the managing editor on The Cincinnati Post, who is concededly a supervisor. So far as the evidence shows, the managing editor of The Kentucky Post acts as a supervisor only when the editor of that newspaper is away on vacation or on sick 'The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and briefs , in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. "Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 3 The Trial Examiner inadvertently found that bargaining negotiations began on Janu- ary 7, 1950. The record shows , and we find , that the negotiations began on January 27, 1950. 4 The Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company, 92 NLRB 1411. and cases cited therein ; Arizona Times, Inc., 85 NLRB 230; A. S. Abell Company, 81 NLRB 82. 94 NLRB No. 55.