J. V. Reed & Co.

J. V. REED & COMPANY 721 J. V. REED & COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF SHEET METAL WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-1946. June 24, 1953 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 Rosemary S. Macke, hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 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.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer.3 3. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that ( 1) no question concerning representation exists because the Petitioner did not request recognition before filing its petition, and (2 ) unfair labor practice charges filed against it by the Petitioner are pending . In the latter connection, the Employer, asserting that the charges were filed by the Peti- tioner "in an effort to create a false issue before the em- ployees," alternatively requests that the processing of the petition be suspended until final disposition is made of the unfair labor practice charges. With respect to the first contention , it is clear from the Employer's position at the hearing that a question concerning representation exists which can best be resolved by an elec- 'Prior to the hearing, the Employer requested that the Regional Director make available to it for inspection at the hearing proof of the Petitioner's compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The purpose of this request was to enable the Employer to litigate the Petitioner's compliance status As the Board has uniformly held that the fact of compliance by a labor organization which is required to comply with the filing requirements of the Act is a matter for administrative determination, and is not litigable by the parties, we affirm the action of the Regional Director in denying the Employer's request and that of the hearing officer in denying the Employer's motion to adjourn the hearing until the Regional Director had complied with its request, as renewed at the hearing. W L. Hoge & Co , Incorporated, 103 NLRB 20. For the same reason, we also deny the request of the Employer in its brief that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director "and the Company given an opportunity to inspect .. ,[whatever documents were filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act] and interrogate the Union Representative concerning them, should there be any question as to the Union being in full compliance . .." Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. 2In this connection, we have, as requested by the parties, considered as part of the record the data pertaining to the Employer's business activities contained in the stipulation which was entered into by the parties after the close of the hearing The Employer concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 3 The Employer's contention that there is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that the Petitioner is a labor organization as defined in the Act is plainly without merit 105 NLRB No. 119. 7 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion.4 As for the other contentions, our records show that the Petitioner has waived the matters contained in its charges as a basis for objection, to any election that might be directed herein. And, contrary to the Employer, we do not believe that the pendency of these charges preclude the possibility of a "fair election" at this time.5 Accordingly, we find without merit, and hereby deny, the Employer's motions based on the aforementioned grounds. 4. The parties agree that a unit of the Employer's production and maintenance employees , including lithographers , is appro- priate. There is a question, however, as to the supervisory status of three group leaders. It appears that the group leaders devote more than half of their time to such duties as assigning work to, obtaining materials for, and instructing groups of approximately 10 to 24 employees; the remainder of their time is spent in manual work. The work assignments which they make are routine in nature and do not require the exercise of independent judgment. They do not have the authority to hire, discharge, or transfer employees, nor are they empowered to adjust grievances. Their recommendations are subject to independent investigation by higher authority. Although earning more than the other produc - tion and maintenance employees, the group leaders have the same working hours and enjoy the same benefits. Like the other employees, they are hourly paid. As it is clear from the foregoing , and the record as a whole, that the group leaders do not possess any of the indicia of supervisory authority as enu- merated in Section 2 (11) of the Act, we find that they are not supervisors and we shall therefore include them in the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant, including lithogra- phers and the group leaders, but excluding watchmen, guards, office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Petitioner would include among those eligible to vote, and the Employer would exclude, 32 employees who were laid off by the Employer on May 8, 1953, because of a decrease in business. The notice advising each of these employees of his layoff stated, inter alia, that "We wish we could tell you when we will call you back, but it looks as though this may be a permanent lay-off." At the hearing, the Employer's president testified that the laid-off employees would be recalled if business conditions should warrant an expansion of the working force, but he was unable to predict when the Employer "would have orders enough to bring them back." On the basis of the 4 Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29. 5 See Newport News Children, s Dress Company, 80 NLRB 442, Stow and Davis Furniture Co 92 NLRB 80. Edward J. Schlachter Meat Co., Inc., 100 NLRB 1171, upon which the Employer relies in this connection, is distinguishable from this case on its facts. ALLISON STEEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 723 foregoing, and the entire record, we find that the employees in question are ineligible to participate in the election.6 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6 Harris Products Company, 100 NLRB 1036; Robert C. Matlock, d/b/a Owensboro Plating Company. 103 NLRB 993. ALLISON STEEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC- 3058. June 24, 1953 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 L. A. Gordon, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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, Murdock, 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 representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all machine shop employees at the Employer's Phoenix, Arizona, plant. The Employer contends that such unit is inappropriate because of the integra- tion of its operations and because it comprises only a small segment of the total number of employees exercising similar skills. With respect to the first contention the record shows that the Employer produces structural steel and aluminum products which are used for the construction of bridges and other heavy structures. Except for its outside workers who are engaged in the construction of bridges , there is no history of collective bargaining at the Employer's plant. The machine shop is located in a building which is 700 feet long and approximately 70 feet wide. The front 100 feet of the building are used as a steel storage area . Immediately back of this area is the machine shop . There is no partition between these two areas , and both are under the supervision of the machine shop foreman. The employees in the machine shop are used in the steel storage area whenever occasion demands. The remaining area in the building is occupied by the galvanizing, plating, welding, and structural department, which is separated 105 NLRB No. 117.