Brighton Mills, Inc.

774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion be held at such time as the Regional Director advises the Board that an election may appropriately be held. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on October 17, 1951, among the employees of the International Shoe Company at its Olney, Illinois, plant be, and it hereby is, set aside. BRIGHTON MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-11C-4565. December 26,1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John S. Patton, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks to represent all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Shannon, Georgia, plant. The Employer claims that the employees at its Forsyth, Georgia, plant should be included in the unit. The two plants are approximately 150 miles apart. There is no interchange of employees. The employees at the Forsyth plant are paid less for comparable work than the employees at the Shannon plant. Each plant has separate immediate super- vision. Although the records for both plants are kept at the Shannon plant and almost the entire output of raw materials at the Forsyth plant is sold to the Shannon plant, we find under all the circumstances, that the unit may appropriately be limited to employees of the Shannon plant.' The office clerical employees. The Petitioner seeks to exclude these employees from the unit, whereas the Employer seeks to include I Harms Hosiery Inc., 91 NLRB 330; Telechron, Inc., 90 NLRB 91. 97 NLRB No. 131. BRIGHTON. MILLS, INC. 775 them. These employees work in an office, and are separately super- vised by the office manager, and are salaried in contrast to the hourly paid production and maintenance employees. Under these circum- stances, we find that the interests of the office clerical employees differ from those of the production and maintenance employees, and we shall therefore adhere to our usual policy of excluding the office clerical employees from the production and maintenance unit.2 The time-study men. The Petitioner seeks to exclude these em- ployees from the unit, whereas the Employer seeks to include them. The time-study men time the various operations at the mill and tabulate the result of these studies. They do not develop standards or make recommendations concerning the work performance of individual employees. They are trained on the job and have no prior time- study experience or training. They are salaried. In view of their close working contacts with the production and maintenance em- ployees, we find that the time-study men should be included in the unit.3 The mail man. The mail man delivers to the various departments in the plant. He is hourly paid. Because of his constant contact with the production and maintenance employees, we shall include him in the unit despite the Petitioner's contention to the contrary. The truck drivers. The Petitioner seeks to exclude truck drivers from the unit while the Employer seeks to include them. The Em- ployer employs several truck drivers to haul materials from one part of the plant to another and between its Forsyth and Shannon plants. The truck drivers are part of the traffic and warehouse department, which is under the supervision of the traffic manager. As the interests of these truck drivers seem to coincide with those of the other ware- house and traffic employees, whom the Petitioner seeks to represent, and as at present no other labor organization seeks to represent the truck drivers in a separate unit, we shall include them in the unit .4 The apprentices. The Employer employs a group of apprentices which it seeks to include in the unit while the Petitioner seeks to ex- clude them. Some of these apprentices are selected from plant per- sonnel; others are college graduates selected from the outside. The apprentices are selected for the purpose of training for managerial positions in the plant. For this purpose they are rotated from one department to another to familiarize them with the operations of all departments. While thus rotating, the apprentices perform the reg- ular work of the employees of the department to which they are as- signed. However, they are not paid the same hourly rates as the production and maintenance employees with whom they work, but 1 National Cash Register Company, 95 NLRB 27. 3 Aragon-Baldwin Mills, Inc., 80 NLRB 1042. 4 Tell City Furniture Company, Inc ., &8 NLRB 284. 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD receive a salary. Under these circumstances, we find that the inter- ests of the apprentices are more closely allied with those of manage- ment than with those of the rank-and-file employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude the apprentices from the unit.5 The fixers. The Petitioner claims that the fixers in the spinning, winding, twisting, carding, and requilling departments are super- visors within the meaning of the Act, and as such should be excluded from the unit. All the parties agree that the fixers in the weaving department are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and the Employer contends that none of the fixers have supervisory authority. As the evidence is conflicting, we are unable to determine from the present record whether the fixers whose status is disputed are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge. In the event that the counting of the challenged ballots will effect the outcome of the elec- tion, a further investigation will be conducted to determine their supervisory status. The top ticket man in the weave department, the electrician fore- man, and the head storekeeper. The Petitioner contends that these individuals are supervisors and should therefore be excluded from the unit. The Employer contends that they have no supervisory authority. It appears from the record that these individuals assign work to employees, who work under their direction. Under these circumstances, we find that the top ticket man in the weave depart- ment, the electrician foreman and the head storekeeper are super- visors within the meaning of the Act and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit. The first line card clother, the top ticket man in the cloth room, the day shift humidifier man, and the water operators. As the record contains no evidence to support the Petitioner's contention that these employees are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and as the Employer claims that they exercise no supervisory authority, we find that the first line card clother, the top ticket man in the cloth room, the day shift humidifier man, and the water operators are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore include them in the Act. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's Shannon, Georgia, plant, including time- study men, the mail man, truck drivers, fixers,' the first line card clother, the top ticket man in the cloth room, the day shift humidifier S. H. Kress & Company, Store No. 7, 94 NLRB No. 161; United States Gypsum Com- pany , 95 NLRB No. 128. 6 For the reasons set forth above, the inclusion of the fixers is not to be taken as a final determination of their status as supervisors , but solely for the purpose of permitting them to vote. COLUMBUS-CELINA COACH LINES 777 man, the doorman,7 but excluding the office clerical employees, ap- prentices, guards, professional employees, the top ticket man in the weave department, the electrician foreman, the head storekeeper, the traffic manager, the head purchasing agent," and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] - 4 The record shows that the Employer employes a doorman who spends about one-third of his time as a watchman and the remainder performing janitorial work. Under these circumstances, we find that the doorman is not a guard within the meaning of the Act, and therefore , have included in the unit . Sylvania Electric Products Inc., 89 NLRB 398. 8 The Employer admitted that the traffic manager and the head purchasing agent were supervisors. HAZEL M. CLUFF , AN INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A COLUMBUS-CELINA COACH LINES, AND COLUMBUS-MARYSVILLE Bus COMPANY , A CORPORATION and TRUCK DRIVERS UNION LOCAL No. 413, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 9-BC 1290. December 88,1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon-a petition duly filed a hearing was held before Robert Cohn, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Reynolds and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer moved to dismiss the instant petition alleging that the two Employers named above are not the joint employers of the employees involved in this proceeding, that the companies whether considered individually or together are not subject to the Board's jurisdiction, and that in any event it would not effectuate the policies Of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. Hazel M. Cluff operates the Columbus-Celina Coach Lines as an individual proprietorship. She also owns all the stock in the Colum- bus-Marysville Bus Company, an Ohio corporation, the other company involved herein. Her son, John C. Cluff, is the general manager of the Columbus-Celina Coach Line and the assistant treasurer of the Columbus-Marysville Line. Both companies share the same offices and the office employees of both Employers receive the same rate of pay. At this same address, 97 NLRB No. 132.