Manning, Bowman & Co.

i In the Matter Of MANNING, BOWMAN & CO., EMPLOYER and INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 1-R-3145.-Decided September 10, 1946 Mr. P. G. Hartnett, of Meriden, Conn., for the Employer. Mr. Francis X. Moore, of Boston, Mass.,'and Mr. Richard N. Rogers, of Stamford, Conn., for the Petitioner. Messrs. Joseph Bair and Louis Tino, both of Meriden, Conn., for the Intervenor. - Mr. Martin T. Camacho, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF` ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Meriden, Connecticut, on July 26, 1946, before Julius Kirle, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER - Manning, Bowman & Co., is a Delaware corporation with its prin- cipal office and place of business in Meriden, Connecticut, where it is engaged in the manufacture of electrical appliances. It is a wholly- owned subsidiary of Bersted Manufacturing Co., an Ohio corporation with offices at Fostoria, Ohio. During the 4 months from January through April, 1946, the Employer manufactured products valued at approximately $428,000, of which 90 percent. was shipped to points outside the State of Connecticut. During the same period the Em- ployer purchased $245,000 worth of raw materials, chiefly steel, copper and plastics; 75 percent of, which originated outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 70 N. L. R. B., No. 126. . 1306 MANNING, BOWMAN & CO. 1307 II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees,of the Em- ployer. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 276, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE 'UNIT The parties agree that the bargaining, unit should consist of all the employees of the Employer at its plant in Meriden, Connecticut, except for time-study men, draftsmen, electrical appliance engineers, office- clerical employees, executives, foremen, and other supervisory employees. The parties are, however, in disagreement as to the status of four leaders' The Petitioner and the Intervenor would.ex- clude these leaders on the ground that they are supervisory employees. The Employer contends that these leaders are not supervisors and urges their inclusion in the proposed unit. The leaders spend about 20 percent of their time laying out work for, and supplying parts to, groups of from 18 to 60 employees. The balance of their time is spent in ordinary production work under the supervision of the foreman in charge of the department. The leaders appear to be treated substantially like production workers. For example, they are classified on the Employer's pay roll as rank and file employees; they are hourly paid, receiving only 5 cents an hour more than production workers within their respective depart- ment; they share in the production workers' incentive plan; and they enjoy the vacation rights of the rank and file. Although the evidence on the point is conflicting, we are satisfied that the, leaders have no power to alter the status of other employees or effectively to recom- mend such action. We find that the leaders are not supervisory em- ' The leaders are sometimes known as "second hands ," "working foremen" and "sub- foremen." 1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees' within the Board's customary definition. Accordingly, we shall include them. We find that all employees of the Employer at its plant in Meriden, Connecticut, including leaders 2 but excluding time-study men, drafts- men, electrical engineers, office, clericals, executives, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of, em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Manning, Bowman & Co., Meriden, Connecticut, 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 First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and.11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period' immediately preceding the date of this 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 them- selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been ditcharged 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 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL or by United Electrical, Radio &-Machine Workers of America, Local 276, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 2 The four leaders in dispute are those respectively in the polishing room, waffle room assembly, plating room and the combined flatiron , broiler and percolator assemblies