General Cable Corp.

In the Matter of GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER Case No. -R-71D5.-Decided April 9, 1947 Mr. G. J. Glehan, of New York City , for the Employer. Mr. William Beedie, of Matawan, N. J., for the Petitioner. Mr. Jerome A . Reiner, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on November 14, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among em- ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, * to deter- mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Peti- tioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election the parties were furnished a Tally of Ballots . The Tally shows that of the approximately 13 eligible voters, 13 cast valid ballots, of which 12 were for and 1 against the Petitioner . There were no challenged ballots. Thereafter, a hearing was held at New York City, on December 5, 1946, before Jerome I. Macht, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the Petition. The hearing officer referred the matter to the Board. For reasons appearing hereinafter , the motion to dis- miss is denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER General Cable Corporation is a New Jersey corporation with a plant located at Bayonne, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electrical wire and cable. During the past year it purchased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, for use in its Bayonne, New Jersey, plant,. of which 90 per- cent was obtained from points outside the State of New Jersey. 73 N. L. R. B, No. 53. 274 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION 275 During the same period it sold finished products from this plant in excess of $100,000, 90 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of New Jersey. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of foremen employed in the production, maintenance, and shipping departments of the Employer's Bayonne, New Jersey, plant. The Bayonne plant has a plant manager, a general superintendent, 5 division superintendents, and 13 foremen, employed in its produc- tion, maintenance, and shipping departments. In this proceeding we are concerned only with the 13 foremen. The Employer has 440 em- ployees at this plant, of which approximately 350 are production, main- tenance, and shipping employees represented by Local B-868, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L. This labor organization has a current contract with the Employer from which foremen are expressly excluded. The foremen in this plant have substantially the same duties and responsibilities. They are paid on a salary basis and have similar hours of work and identical working conditions; they attend meetings of foremen called by management. They are responsible to the di- visional superintendents to whom they make reports concerning the operations of the departments over which the foremen have charge. The foremen have authority to discharge and effect changes in the status of employees under their supervision. Like the foremen who are similarly employed at the Employer's plants at Rome, New York, and Perth Amboy, New Jersey, the Bayonne foremen enforce, but apparently do not formulate, company policy.' I See Matter of General Cable Corporation, 68 N. L R. B 660, 662-663; 67 N L. R. B. 538, 540. 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the foremen are employees within the meaning of the Act and that they may con- stitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining purposes.2 For the reasons set forth in numerous cases,' we find no merit in the Em- ployer's contention that the foremen may not be represented by the Petitioner because of its affiliation with the labor organization repre- senting the rank-and-file employees. We find that all foremen employed in the production, maintenance, and shipping departments of the Employer's Bayonne plant, ex- eluding all other employees, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The results of the election show that the Petitioner has been selected as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. We shall, therefore, certify it as such. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, as their representative for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such em- ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. - MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting: The Petitioner which seeks certification for a unit of supervisory employees is affiliated with the certified bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees whose activities the supervisors direct. Consequently, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Mat- ter of Jones cC Laughlin Steel Corporation,' I believe the certification of the Petitioner is not compatible with effectuating the purposes of the Act, nor is it in harmony with pertinent Common Law and the public interest. I would therefore dismiss the petition. 2 Packard Motor Car Company v. N L. R B , 67 S Ct 789 , decided March 10, 1947; Matter of General Cable Corporation , supra. See, e g, Matter of General Cable Corporation, supra , Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Daession, 66 N L R . B 386 . 397-403 4 71 N L R B 1261.