Kaiser Manufacturing Corp.

244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The drivers were permanently assigned to their routes by Warehouse Super- intendent Wright and they looked upon him as their immediate supervisor. If the drivers wished a change In -assignment, they would generally discuss it with Wright or Foreman Anderson. On occasion, drivers have discussed assignment changes with Kennoy but he has referred them to Wright . Drivers have also on occasion asked Kennoy about a wage increase ; he has also referred that to Wright. If a driver were absent, Kennoy would report that fact to Wright or Anderson if it came to his attention and, at their direction , would instruct another driver to take that run. In each instance , the decision relative to the change in pay or assignment was made by Anderson or Wright , and Kennoy merely carried out their instructions. There were occasions at infrequent intervals when drivers required helpers or swampers. On such occasions , Kennoy would direct an employee to assist a truck driver, after having been told by Wright or Anderson whom be could use. On one occasion . Kennoy directed an employee to warn another employee to improve his work habits under threat of discharge. Several employees and former employees testified that they had overheard Kennoy directing drivers and swampers. In view of Kennoy's explanation set out above, I find that he was merely carrying out specific Instructions of Wright and Anderson in these instances. The Petitioner also contends that because there are about 100 employees In the warehouse, there must be more than 2 supervisors. This contention is with- out merit because there is no showing that the nature of the work Is such that it requires close supervision. In addition, assuming that more supervisors are justified, this would not tend to establish Kennoy's status as a supervisor. From Kennoy's actions, above described, it can be seen that he had been in- vested with some of the indicla of supervisory authority. If the Issue were whether the Employer is responsible for Kennoy's acts or statements because•of his ostensible authority, a different result might be reached ; but the Issue here is whether Kennoy in fact is a supervisor. Under all the circumstances, It Is clear, and I find, that Kennoy did not in fact possess or assert supervisory au- thority.' I find that Kennoy was not, during the payroll period ending June 30, 1950, a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and that he was entitled to vote in the election of July 14, 1950. I therefore recommend that his ballot be opened and counted. I Cf. Kraft Foods Company, 97 NLRB 1097 (Wrona). KAISER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, RICHMOND MACHINING Divl- SION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL `YORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 302, AFL, PETITIONER KAISER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, RICHMOND MACHINING DIVI- SION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 115, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 20-R-1735 and 20-RC-1753. May ^1, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held in the above cases before Robert V. Magor, hearing officer. The hear- 99 NLRB No. 45. KAISER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 245 ing 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 these cases to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 302, AFL, the Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC-1735, herein referred to as the Electrical Workers, seeks a unit of all electricians, their helpers, and apprentices. The International Association of Ma- chinists, District Lodge No. 115, the Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC- 1753, herein referred to as the Machinists, seeks a unit of all produc- tion and maintenance employees, excluding the electricians. The United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein referred to as the Intervenor, seeks a production and maintenance unit.' The Employer, although opposing any election at this time on the ground that its operations were sched- uled to expand, maintained that if an election were directed it should be in a single over-all unit including electricians. There is no history of collective bargaining at this plant of the Employer. The Employer, which is engaged in machine finishing aircraft parts for Boeing Aircraft, employs four journeyman electricians, and plans no expansion of this group in the immediate future. It does not at present employ any electrician helpers or apprentices, but did not state whether or not it planned to hire any. The four electricians now employed were hired as journeyman electricians, and had 5 or 6 years of previous experience. They are required to furnish some of their own tools, which are of the type normally furnished by journeyman electricians. Most of the machines used by the Employer are electrically oper- ated. The electricians are engaged primarily in the repair of elec- trical breakdowns in the machinery. They are also responsible for the general maintenance of all electrical equipment in the plant. I Although the representative of the Intervenor contended at the beginning of the hear- ing that the production and maintenance unit should include the electricians , he stated at the close of the hearing that "we agree with the Machinists , that the Electrical nroth- erhood is a craft union , but we will leave it up to the Board to make a decision an the appropriate unit " 215233-53-17 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The electricians are under the supervision of a project engineer. They have no central base of operations, but they and the project engi- neer who directs them work throughout the plant. The electricians do no production work. When repairing production machines, they remain under the supervision of the project engineer, and are not sub- ject to direction by the production foremen. On the basis of the entire record, we find that the electricians con- stitute a homogeneous, identifiable craft group that may appropriately be represented in a separate unit. As they may, however, also be ap- propriately included in the over-all production and maintenance unit, we shall not make any final determination at this time of the appro- priate unit or units, but shall first ascertain the desires of the em- ployees in the elections hereinafter directed. We shall direct that separate elections be held among the employees of the Employer at its Richmond, California, plant, within the voting groups described below : Voting group I: All production and maintenance employees, in- cluding the inspectors and material handlers, but excluding all elec- tricians, their helpers and apprentices, office and clerical employees, project engineers, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. Voting group II : All electricians, their helpers, and apprentices, ex- cluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined by the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group II select a collective bargaining agent different from that selected by a majority of em- ployees in voting group I, the employees in voting group II will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit; and if a majority of the employees in voting group I also select a collec- tive bargaining agent, the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue separate certifications of repre- sentatives to the collective bargaining agents so selected for (1) a unit consisting of the employees in voting group I, and (2) a unit consist- ing of the employees in voting group II, which units the Board finds under such circumstances to constitute units appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. In the event a majority of the employees in voting groups I and II select the same collective bargain- ing agent, the employees in voting group II will be taken to have in- dicated a desire to be included in the same bargaining unit as the employees in voting group I, and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the collective bargaining agent so selected for a unit con- sisting of all employees in voting groups I and II, which unit the Board under such circumstances finds to constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5. The Employer contended that an election at this time would not be representative of the desires of all its employees in view of its plans CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN LINES, INC. 247 for expansion. Employees were placed on the payroll at this plant in October 1951, but production did not begin until about February 1, 1952. At the time of the hearing, the Employer had 62 production employees, and contemplated an increase by the end of June 1952 to 102 production employees. The Employer's proposed increases there- after were not specified on the record. The extent and timing of the planned increases were dependent upon the receipt of special ma- chinery which the Employer had ordered. The Employer did not plan to hire any additional employees as electricians or in various other classifications by June, and was operating with employees in practical- ly all the categories it would maintain when its contemplated expan- sion was completed. Under these circumstances and upon the basis of the entire record, we find that the working force which will be em- ployed when the elections directed herein are held will be a substantial and representative segment of the employees to be employed in the vot- ing groups for a reasonable time in the future.2 We therefore see no reason for departing from the Board's usual policy of directing an immediate election. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] = Rockwell Register Corporation, 98 NLRB No. 183. CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN LINES, INC. and TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-615. May 22,1950 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Kyle, 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, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. I The hearing officer referred to the Board motions to dismiss , on various grounds, made by the Employer and the Intervenor, Southern Association For Transportation Employees For the reasons stated in section 3, infra, the motions are granted. Also referred to the Board was a motion by the Petitioner to open and inspect certain ballots which did not reach their intended destination . As inspection of those ballots would not affect our determination herein, we do not find it necessary to pass upon the motion 99 NLRB No. 42.