Steelweld Equipment Co., Inc.

In the Matter of STEELWELD EQUIPMENT COMPANY , INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 9, PETITIONER Case No. 14-RC-3.-Decided March 19, 1948 Mr. Earl J. Anderson, of Robertson, Mo., and Mr. John C. Rappel, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer. Messrs. Cody Quinn and Kenneth Whitson, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on October 31, 1947, before Glenn L. Moller, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial 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 Steelweld Equipment Company, Inc., is a Missouri corporation en- gaged in the fabrication of steel products, with a plant and office at Lambert Field, near St. Louis, Missouri. The Employer annually uses raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 75 percent is received from points outside the State. The Employer annually produces finished products valued in excess of $500,000, ap- proximately 50 percent of which is shipped to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 1 The hearing officer properly refused to permit the Employer to inquire into the showing of interest made by the Petitioner. This is not a matter for direct or collateral attack at a hearink. Matter of Mascot Stove Co, 75 N L R B. 427; and Matter of Southern Advance Bag and Paper Co., 75 N. L. R. B. 614 76 N. L. R. B., No. 116. 831 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees 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 exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em- ployees of the Employer, excluding office clerical employees and supervisors. The Employer contends that a unit of production work- ers would be appropriate, but objects to the inclusion of maintenance employees in the unit. The parties agree that engineering and pro- curement employees should be excluded from the appropriate unit. The Petitioner and the Employer disagree as to the status of working foremen. There are eight maintenance employees, all under one of the work- ing foremen. Some unload raw materials from trucks ; others are employed in the stock and tool rooms; still others repair and main- tain plant equipment. Three other maintenance employees act as porters and do clean-up work. In view of the close relationship be- tween the work of the maintenance and of the production workers and the community of interest of both classes of employees, and in- asmuch as no cogent reason appears for their separation, we shall follow` our usual policy of including the maintenance employees with the production workers in one bargaining unit.2 The parties disagree with respect to the status of William Ceplecha, Harry Jones, Frank Bahr, and Frank Hopkins, who, classified as working foremen, work under the supervision of Robert Brennecke, the head of the production and maintenance department. The Peti- tioner concedes that Brennecke is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, but contends that the duties of the four working foremen do not bring them within the statutory definition of supervisor.3 2 Matter of American Twine and Fabric Corp , 70 N L R. B 283 ; and Matter of Fogel Refrigerator Co , 61 N L R B 692 8 Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, defines the term "supervisor " as "any individual having authority , in the interest of the employer , to hire , transfer , suspend, lay-off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward , or discipline other employees , or responsibly to direct then , or to adjust their grievances , or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment " STEELWELD EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 833 The record indicates that Ceplecha, Jones, Bahr and Hopkins spend the major, or a substantial, portion of their time in manual work.4 They are paid salaries which are substantially higher than the nor- mal5 earnings of their subordinates. They requisition materials for, assign work to, and are responsible for the output of, groups of ap- proximately 8 to 30 employees. They select employees to perform overtime work, direct and criticize the work of their subordinates and report to Brennecke on their performance. Except for these working foremen, there is no intermediate supervision between Bren- necke and the 75 to 80 production and maintenance employees at the plant. Under these circumstances and on the entire record in the case, we are of the opinion that working foremen at the Employer's plant are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and must, therefore, be excluded from the unit.a It appears that three maintenance employees at the plant combine with their maintenance duties service as night watchmen. The record is not entirely clear as to what proportion of their time is spent in such service. If they spend more than 50 percent of their working time as night watchmen, we will consider that they are "employed as a guard" within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the amended Act, and they will be excluded from the milt; otherwise, they will be regarded as maintenance employees and will be included .7 We, accordingly, find that all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding office clerical, engineering, and procurement employees, guards, working foremen, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate 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 tivith Steelweld Equipment Com- pany, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, 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 Fourteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- 4 Bahr spends 90 percent of his time in manual work , the rest engage in manual work in vaiymg degrees 5 When the subordinates work overtime their earnings may exceed those of the working foremen . who are not paid for overtime. Matter of Dayton, Pt ace & Co ., 73 N L R. B. 149 7 Matter of Radio Corporation of America, 76 N. L. R B. 826 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD latibns-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate 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, 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 ex- cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Interna- tional Association of Machinists , District No. 9, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MEMBERS REYNOLDS and MURDOCK , dissenting in part : We are unable to agree with the action of our colleagues to ant, extent that they have included in a production and maintenance unit., three employees who serve both as maintenance employees and night watchmen, provided that not more than 50 percent of their time ,, spent in the latter activity . Our reasons for concluding that such action is not consistent with the Congressional intent in Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act are set forth more fully in Matter of Radio Corporation of America, 76 N. L. R. B. 826. Having in this case and in the Radio Corporation case registerea our dissent from the action of our colleagues in treating part-time watchmen as not covered by the terms of Section 9 (b) (3), we shall in future cases recognize the majority decisions therein as the rule to be followed and shall not continue to note a dissent.