The Steel Products Engineering Co.

THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 565 In these circumstances , we find that the Employers have not clearly and unequivocally evinced an intention henceforth to pursue a course of individual action with respect to their labor relations . For this reason , we find that the bargaining history on a multiemployer basis is controlling in deter- mining the appropriate unit.9 As single employer units are too limited in scope, we shall grant Local 6's motion to dismiss the petitions. [The Board dismissed the petitioner.] 9 Washington Hardware Company, 95 NLRB 1001; Carnation Company, 90 NLRB 1808; cf Atlas Storage Division, P & V Atlas Industrial Center, Inc , 100 NLRB 1323. The Board's decision in Construction Device Company , Case No 20-RC-1805 , not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions , upon which the Employers and the Association rely, is inappli- cable. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANYand UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, Petitioner and ASSOCIATION OF STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COM- PANY EMPLOYEES, INC. Case No. 9-RC-1690. August 5, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION On September 3, 1952 , pursuant toa stipulation for certifica- tiort upon consent election , an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervison of the Regional Di- rector for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit . Upon the completion of the election , a tally of ballots was furnished the parties . The tally reveals that of ap- proximately 950 eligible voters, 803 cast valid ballots , of which 390 were cast for the Petitioner , 396 were cast for the Inter- venor , and 17 were against both participating labor organiza- tions . Forty-six ballots were challenged and 2 were void. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed within the time provided therefor. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election , the Regional Director , pursuant to the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , conducted an investigation and, on October 1, 1952, issued and served upon the parties a report on challenged ballots . In his report , the Regional Direc- tor recommended that the challenges to the ballots of Walter Howard , Norman Endter , Kenneth Walter , John Foster, and Andrew Gibson be sustained , and that a hearing be held concern- ing the eligibility status of the voters listed by him in groups I, III, and IV, as set forth in the report . No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director ' s recommendations contained therein. 106 NLRB No. 90. 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 31, 1952 , the Boardadoptedthe Regional Director's recommendations , sustaining the challenges to the ballots of Howard , Endter, Walter , Foster, and Gibson, and directing that a hearing be held with respect to the status of the employees listed in groups I, III, and IV , as set forth in the Regional Di- rector's report . The Board in its order also granted the re- quest for intervention filed by counsel for 34 of the challenged voters and directed the hearing officer to resolve credibility issues and to make findings of fact and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the challenges. Thereafter , a hearing was held on November 25, 26, and 28, 1952 , before William E . Rhodes, hearing officer . The Employer, the Petitioner , the Intervenor, and counsel for the 34 challenged voters appeared and participated . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross - examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded the parties. On March 4, 1953, in accordance with the Board order, the hearing officer issued and duly served upon the parties his re- port , a copy of which is hereto attached . With respect to the voters in group I, the hearing officer found that Charles Crosbie , Albert Kadle , John Schmidlin , Howard Callison, T. J. Willis , Lawrence Gordon , Joseph Brothers , Carl W . Roller, Walter Clark , Robert Parks, and J. M. Payne were not super- visors within the meaning of the Act and recommended that the challenges to their ballots be overruled, and that the latter be opened and counted . The hearing officer found that Joseph Loeffler , Lawrence McIntire , Ralph Calhoun , John Weng, Roy Roach , Clarence Holman, Clifford Wright , Ernest Poole, Arthur Stoops, Merrill Kunkle , Walter Bunker, Clarence Stultz, Robert Sintz, Robert Grieb , Theodore McCabe, James Brandle, William Chatfield , Warren Steele , Clarence Mechlin , Joseph Hupman, Milton Barrett , Eugene Benbow , Robert Wiegle, Bernard Lokcinski , and Alvin Dillon, the remaining employees in this group , were supervisors as defined in the Act, and rec- ommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained. The hearing officer also found that Alma Snyder , Ida Pencil, Mary Byerman , and Rosetta Bushman, who comprised the voters in group III , were plant clerical employees , a category excluded from the stipulated unit , and likewise recommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained . The hearing officer further found that Paul Gochenauer , who constituted the only voter in group IV , was not employed as a guard within the meaning of the Act and recommended that the challenge to his ballot be overruled and that it be opened and counted. All parties, including the challenged voters who were permitted to intervene , filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's re- port , and briefs in support of their exceptions. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made at the hearing by the hearing officer and finds no prejudicial error was com- 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, Murdock, and Peterson]. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 567 mitted . The rulings are hereby affirmed .: The Board has con- sidered the hearing officer ' s report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions , and recommendations of the hearing officer, with the modification set forth below ,3 and makes the following additional findings: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 following employees at the Employer ' s Springfield, Ohio, plants constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees , including office and plant janitors , shipping department employees , inside truckers , truckdrivers , inspectors , setup men not found to be supervisors in this proceeding , stoker servicemen , and regular part-time employees , but excluding watchmen, time-keepers, time-study employees , dispatchers , plant - clerical employees, 2 After the close of the hearing, the representative for certain of the challenged voters filed with the Board a motion to dismiss this proceeding on the grounds that (a) the hearing officer's conduct and particularly his action in refusing to grant a postponement, deprived said voters of their rights under the Act; and (b) the hearing officer issued his report in defiance of the decree of a State court. With respect to (a) the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a postponement. We find nothing in the record that supports the contention that the conduct of the hearing by the hearing officer was in any manner improper As to (b) we find no merit in the contention that the decree of the State court precluded the hearing officer from issuing his report. See W. J Carter and Brothers, 90 NLRB 2020, 2023, and cases cited therein; Combustion Engineering Company, Inc.. 86 NLRB 1264. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied. A motion by the same voters to transfer the record in this proceeding to Case No 9-CB- 178, an unfair labor practice proceeding now pending against the Petitioner, is denied because the issues involved in the two cases are not the same. Jackson Daily News, 86 NLRB 729 Another motion by counsel for the challenged voters to strike a brief filed by one Willard Dobbs in behalf of the intervenor likewise is denied. We find it unnecessary in this determina- tion of the merits of the challenged ballots to pass upon the authority of Dobbs to represent the Intervenor. A further request by counsel for the challenged voters to withdraw the challenges to 20 ballots, opposed by the Petitioner, is rejected in view of our adoption of the hearing officer's findings and conclusions that 15 of these voters were ineligible. As to the remaining 5 challenges, we shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted in accordance with our findings hereinabove The Petitioner's request that the election be set aside and a new election directed is denied because it is lacking in merit. 3 We correct the following inadvertence in the hearing officer's findings, which does not affect the validity of his ultimate conclusions nor our concurrence therein The hearing officer's finding on page 18 that "Chilton Gano testified that Bagford sets up the Gleason spiral bevels," should read: "Gano testified that Wiegle sets up the Gleason spiral bevels," etc. 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD detailers , engineering and drafting employees , nurses, experi- mental employees who are not engaged in production work, office clerical , administrative and salaried employees , tempo- rary employees, salesmen, superintendents , assistant super- intendents , foremen , assistant foremen, group leaders, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Ninth Region shall , pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board , within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Direction, open and count these ballots, and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots , including therein the count of these challenged ballots.] HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT ON CHALLENGED BALLOTS Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election dated August 15, 1952, an election under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, was conducted on September 3, 1952, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region of the Board, hereinafter called the Regional Director. The tally of ballots disclosed the follow- ing results: Approximate number of eligible voters 950 Void ballots 2 Votes cast for the Petitioner 390 Votes cast for the Intervenor 396 Votes case against participating labor organizations 17 Valid votes counted 803 Challenged ballots 46 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots 849 The counting and tabulating of the ballots at the election were fairly and accurately done. Copies of the tally of ballots and certificate of conduct of the election, duly executed by official observers of the Company, Petitioner and the Intervenor have been received in evidence as Board's Exhibits IF and 1G. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed. Inasmuch as the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of the challenges and on October 1, 1952, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots. The aforementioned report on challenged ballots issued by the Regional Director divided the challenged ballots into four groups. Group I consists of 36 employees who werechallenged either by Petitioner or Intervenor on the ground that said employees were supervisors. Group II consists of five employees who were challenged by the Board agent because their names did not appear on the eligibility list. Group III consists of four employees who were challenged either by the Petitioner or In- tervenor on the ground that they were factory clerical employees, an excluded category, and therefore not eligible to vote in the election. Group IV consists of an employee who was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that he is a guard and therefore was not an eligible employee. The Regional Director's report recommended to the Board that the challenges to the ballot of Walter Howard, Norman Endter, Kenneth Walter, John Foster, and Andrew Gibson, the employees in group II, be sustained, and that a hearing be held to determine the status of the employees listed in groups I, III, and IV. During the course of the investigation on challenged ballots on September 17, 1952, Attorney Aaron J. Halloran submitted a letter to the Regional Director requesting permission to inter- vene on the ground that he represented 34 of the challenged voters. The Regional Director referred the request for intervention to the Board. No exceptions were filed by any of the parties to the Regional Director's report. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 569 In an order dated October 31,1952, a copy of which has been received in evidence as Board's Exhibit 1C, the Board ordered that the request for intervention on behalf of the challenged voters be granted. The Board further ordered that the challenges to the ballot of Walter Howard, Norman Endter , Kenneth Walter , John Foster, and Andrew Gibson be sustained; that a hearing be held with respect to the status of the employees listed in groups I, III, and IV as set forth in the Regional Director 's report and that the hearing officer designated for the pur- pose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses , findings of fact and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said objections. Pursuant to a notice , a hearing was conducted at Springfield, Ohio, on November 24, 25, 26, and 28 before the undersigned hearing officer . The Company, the Petitioner , the Intervenor, and the challengees were all represented by counsel.' All parties were offered full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence relating to the issues involved. At the close of the hearing counsel for all parties waived oral argument . Parties were in- formed concerning their right to file written briefs . Written briefs were filed by the Company, Petitioner , and the challengees . Briefs have been given the fullest consideration in the prepa- ration of this report. The following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation are based on the entire record in the case and upon the undersigned 's observation of the witnesses. THE COMPANY The Company ships from the State of Ohio to points outside the State of Ohio goods valued in excess of $100 ,000 per year. The Company is engaged in defense work. Chilton J. Gano is vice president and plant manager of the Company . Directly under Mr. Gano are two superintendents , Mr. Jack Spencer , superintendent of machines , and Mr. Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly . Chilton J. Gano testified that on the day shift there were 19 foremen and 3 assistant foremen , and the night shift there was a general foreman and 3 department foremen. FINDINGS 2 A. Group I Joseph Loeffler : Loeffler 's superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his immediate supervisors are Foreman Rodney F. Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell McKee. He sets up grinders and assists the operators in department 170, on the night shift, in their work . The employees in the department receive their various work assignments by referring to a job sheets which has been prepared by the production department for both the day and night shifts . If the job on the sheet has been completed , or for some other reason can not be run , then Loeffler assigns the man to another job. Loeffler knows after he gets the first-piece inspector 's report whether the parts are coming through properly . After he gets the report from the inspector , and if there is anything wrong with the operation of the machine, he will check the machine and attempt to repair or correct it. He continually checks to see that the parts are correctly coming through the machine , as it is his responsibility that the machine properly produces the parts. Lawrence McIntire : His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his immediate supervisors are Foreman Errol Wolfe and Assistant Foreman Jack Stegall. There are 15 employees in this department. McIntire does no production work . Each morning McIntire receives a job sheet. He then canvasses the employees in his department to determine what jobs are open. The employee 's name is written down and the exact time that he anticipates employee will complete a job. With this information he goes to the foreman , and from the job sheet the foreman sets out the jobs that the employees are to do on prints . The prints, with 'Samuel A. McCray, Esquire, Theodore J. Vradalis . Esquire, Harvey Rector , Esquire, succeeded Attorney Halloran as representative of the challengees. 2 The findings here made are based mostly on a composite testimony of all witnesses presented. 3The job sheet is also called the "hot sheet" or "critical sheet." It names the part number that is needed and the quantity, but it does not name the person that is to do the job. 57 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the operator's name on them, are distributed to the operators by McIntire. Wolfe has two other' departments besides Mclntire's. Whenever any operator has difficulty in his work McIntire assists hum. McIntire first attempts to determine the difficulty; if he is unsuccessful he than goes to the foreman. McIntire also instructs new operators. Assistant Foreman Stegal, as part of his duties, is a setup man in one of Foreman Wolfe's other departments. Ralph Calhoun: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Rodney Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell McKee. Calhoun sets up jobs or assists in setting up jobs for eleven employees in his depart- ment. Every morning Calhoun receives the "hot" or job sheet from the assistant foreman and from the sheet he assigns jobs to employees in the department. Whenever an operator runs out of work, Calhoun assigns him additional work from the job sheet. At various times odd jobs come into the department which are not listed on the job or "hot" sheet and Calhoun assigns the various jobs to an employee in his department. Whenever the employees rwi into trouble, he assists them. If he cannot first correct the trouble, he goes to the assistant fore- man. Calhoun seldom performs any production work; he watches the other employees to see if a particular job is completed, and it is his responsibility to see that the jobs on the "hot" sheet are completed. John Weng: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his im- mediate supervisors are Foreman Rodney Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell McKee. He sets up jobs and assists 12 machine operators in his department. Whenever these operators run into difficulty with their job they go to Weng and he assists them. Weng first attempts to correct any difficulty that an operator reports that he is having and if he is unsuccessful he then goes to the assistant foreman. Itis his responsibility to see that the work on the machines is done correctly. Before anyone borrows tools in Weng's department they first go to him. In addition to Weng's department Meade has approximately 4 other departments. Meade spends approximately 10 to 15 minutes a day in Weng's department. Weng receives the job sheet from the foreman or assistant foreman and he works from the sheet in setting up the work on the different machines. When a job is finished on any one machine, Weng refers to the job sheet as to what job is to be done next. Roy Roach: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his im- mediate supervisor is Foreman Carl Bagford. Roach sets up and assists in the setting up of jobs for approximately 16 operators in his department. Whenever an operator runs into diffi- culty with his job he goes to Roach, and if Roach can't determine the problem he then goes to the foreman. It is Roach's responsibility to make sure that the work coming off the machine is properly checked for quality. He does no production work. He gives permission for the employees in his department to leave the building. He assigns work in the department from the work or job sheet provided him by the foreman. Clarence Holman: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly, and his immediate supervisor is Leo Morris. Holman works on the night shift, and Foreman Morris remains on this shift only a short time. Holman sets up and assists 4 machine opera- tors in his department. If an operator wants to leave the department Holman issues him a pass4 Before Morris leaves the department he calls Holman and the 4 other men in the de- partment together and tells them what is to be done that night. If a man finishes a particular job and doesn't know what to do, he would go to Holman and find out what machine he is to operate. Holman spends approximately 50 percent of his time working or operating a machine. Charles Crosbie: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly. His immediate supervisor is Foreman Paul Ingleman. Crosby's entire duties are spent in the building of a transmission for a unit that is later to be approved by the Government. In building the transmission he makes tools so that the parts will go together and he sets the parts up. At the present time he has one man working with him. At the time of the September election he worked by himself.5 Clifford Wright: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his immediate supervisors are Foreman Rodney Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell McKee. In addition to Wright's department, Meade has approximately 4 other departments. lie em- ployees in his department get their work assignments by referring to a job sheet that has been 4Gano's testimony that the giving of a pass to go outside the building is not a permissive job is given no weight. Holman credibly testified that a person can not leave without a slip and that he puts the person's reason for leaving on the slip. 5 No weight is given to Sherman Voorhees' testimony that 9 or 10 men work with Crosbie. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 57 1 posted .6 There are approximately from 15 to 40 employees in his department. Wright sets up and assists in setting up machines in his department; he instructs the employees when necessary and also makes sure that the quality of the work coming from the machines, by counsel with inspection, is being held to a proper quality. Wright's permission must first be given before any tools can be taken out of his department. Albert Kadle: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly, and his immediate supervisor is Foreman William Barkley. Nine employees work in this department. The majority of Kadle's time is spent on the job of wleding. When, however Foreman Barkley takes a vacation or is absent for a day,7 Kadle gets the work assignments from Superintendent Murray or Spencer, and Kadle assigns the work and instructs and assists the ot«nr welders in the performance of their duties. During Barkley's absence, if the work is not properly done, he will first attempt to correct it. If he is unsuccessful, he then reports to the superintendent for advice. Ernest Poole: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his immediate supervisor is Foreman Harry Helfrich. Helfrich is over a total of 4 departments, and in Poole's department there are approximately 5 employees. Poole spends a very small amount of his time in doing production work--only when some special occasion arises. Poole assigns 8 work and instructs the employees in his department. If an employee does not under- stand how to do a particular job, he goes to Poole to find out the correct way to perform the job. Whenever an employee runs out of his particular job, he goes to Poole or Helfrich for a further job assignment. John Schmidlin:9 His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervison of Foreman Carl Rothaar. There are around 30 employees in his department. A majority of Schmidlin's time is spent making tools and dies. Whenever Foreman Rothaar is sick, absent for the day, or on vacation, Schmidlin has authority to sign passes giving permission to employees to leave thedepartment. During the foreman's absence he apportions and assigns the work that his foreman leaves with him among the other em- ployees. 10 Arthur Stoops: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Rodney Meade, and Assistant Foreman Russell McKee. Chilton Gano testified that Stoops sets up machines in his department and assists others in his group to setup their machines; that Stoops assigns work under the direction of a foreman or assistant foreman,11 instructs where instructions are needed and makes sure that the machines under his care are turning out work to the required specifications. Merrill Kunkle: His foreman is Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson,.and he is under the im- mediate supervision of Night Foreman Timmerman. There are about 6 or 7 employees in Kunkle's department. His duties would be similar to those performed by Clarence Stultz on the day shift. Walter Bunker: He is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Paul Ingleman, There are 12 to 15 employees in his department, filler cap assembly. Bunker assigns other employees work in his department from a job sheetprovided him by his foreman; he instructs and assists 6More weight is given to Robert Rice's testimony as to how the job is assigned than to Charles McClure, as Rice works in Wright's department ?During the last year Barkley was absent approximately 1 week. 8John Gaier and William Henkle credibly testified that they receive their work assign- ments from Poole For clarification, Poole according to the procedures generally followed by the Company, would receive the job sheet from the foreman and from the sheet assign the work to the various employees. 9 Incorrectly spelled in the Regional Director's report on challenged ballots as Smidlin. 16 During the last year Rothaar was absent a little over 2 weeks. 11Gano later testified that he meant, by under the direction of the foreman or assistant foreman that the group leader receives a "hot" sheet, which has been prepared by the production department The "hot" sheet or job sheet is first given to the superintendent. He. in turn, meets with the foremen and distributes the sheets to them. The job sheet or critical sheet is then passed on by the foremen to their group leaders. Gano further explained that the job in the first place would not be assigned by the group leader, but whenever a new man or a new job first comes into the department, the initial assignment is made by the foreman. After the initial assignment the group leader from that time makes the assign- ment from the job sheet. 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD everyone in his department who does not completely know their jobs. He knows every part of the assembly work of the different types of filler cap groups. Charles Runyan, the department grievance man for the Intervenor, testified that he had taken up grievance matters with Bunker. Howard Callison: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Arthur Buzan. There are four employees in his department. Callison's duties are to heat treat metal in the form that it is presented to him. He is the oldest man in his department and has the knowledge and capabilities of operating any piece of equipment in the department. From time to time employees in the department ask him about the operationofaparticular job, but Callison refers them to the foreman. When- ever the foreman is not going to be at work the next day he usually marks the ticket, which shows how a job is to be done. If he should not leave these instructions the employees go to a file, which has been set up in the department, and from it they determine how a particular job is to be done. Clarence Stultz: He is under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson and Assistant Chief Inspector Herman Stevenson. There are approximately 18 em- ployees in Stultz' department. Stoltz receives the "hot" or job sheet from Johnson and he assigns the work from it to the different inspectors. Part of the inspectors are chosen to do the work on the basis of Stultz' knowledge and ability without reference to Johnson's instruc- tions; the other inspectors are selected to do the work on the basis of previous instructions from Johnson. Stultz instructs the inspectors as to what work they should do and how they should do it. Johnson's time that he actually spends in Stultz' department would vary from 1 to 3 hours a day. Subsequent to the September election, around the middle of October, Stultz signed passes for about 4 days and gave permission to employees in his department to leave the department and go to another part of the plant. Prior to the September election employees from other departments got permission from Stultz to come in his department, if Johnson and Stevenson were not present, but since the election Stoltz has been relieved of this duty by Johnson and Stevenson. Robert Sintz: He is under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson, and Assistant Chief Inspector Herman Stevenson. Chilton Gano testified that Sintz sets up the necessary methods for inspection; he assists others to do so; he assigns work on the instruc- tion of his foremen 12 and he will assist and instruct other employees at any time. There are three other employees in his department. Leo Shartran testified that when he first came to work in Sintz' department, Chief Inspector Johnson introduced Sintz to him as his new boss and that Smtz would take care of anything he wanted to know, or if any difficulty arose, Sintz would take care of it. Sintz has informed employees in his department as to whether or not they were to work late or overtime. T. J. Willis or Thearl Willis: He is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Sikes. Willis is engaged mainly in general maintenance work, such as sweeping walks, cutting grass, plumbing work, and taking care of the fire extinguishers. He has from time to time been given several people to work with him on some chore that may be too big for him to accomplish alone. 13 Robert Grieb: He is under the immediate supervision of Inspector Lawrence Johnson, and Assistant Chief Inspector Herman Stevenson. There are 9 inspectors in the department, 4 employees do inspection work on the bench, 5 are floor or roaming inspectors. Grieb's duties are to instruct other employees in his department and to assist in the setup of inspec- tion procedures. Each day he receives a job sheet from the foreman. By looking at the part number on the job sheet Grieb can tell whether it is 1, 11, III, or IV gear. Class I gear would require the least amount of skill to inspect, and class IV gear would require the most amount of skill. After determining what gear it is, Grieb assigns the work to the inspector capable of doing the work. Chief Inspector Johnson originally determined who was capable of inspect- ing the various classifications of gears. If one of the inspectors claims there is a discrepancy in the gear according to the blueprint. Grieb reinspects the gear and determines whether there is any discrepancy, and if he determines there is, makes a record of it and sees that the record goes to the proper authorities. Grieb also inspects the first piece that comes off every new job, and when everyone else is busy and there is a special job, he does inspection 12 See footnote 11, supra. 13 No weight is given to Sherman Voorhees' testimony that sometimes Willis has 3 to 5 men under hint. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 573 work. is If any tools or replacements are needed in the department , Grieb requisitions them from the foreman. If an inspector wants to leave the plant before the regular shift is ended, Grieb makes arrangements for him to get a pass to leave. Grieb has authority to issue passes to permit employees from other departments to come into his department. Lawrence Gordon: His superintendent is Jack Spencer , superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Carl Bagford . His sole work duties are the setting up and operation of a thread grinding machine.15 Theodore McCabe: His superintendent is Jack Spencer , superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Helfrich . There are approximately eight employees in his department . McCabe does little production work and he approves the employees ' time at night. Chilton Gano testified that McCabe sets up the machines; he assists others in the group to set up machines ; he assigns work under the direction of his foreman 16 or assistant foreman; instructs where instructions are needed , and he makes sure that the machines under his care are turning out work to the required specifications. James Brandle: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines. He is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harold Wolfe and Assistant Foreman John Stegall. Brandle's duties would be similar to Lawrence Mclntyre's. William Chatfield : His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Helfrich . There are approximately 12 to 15 men in his department. Chatfield sets up the boring mills; assists those in the group to set up their work ; instructs the employees ; assigns work to employees from a job sheet provided by his foreman ; makes sure that the work is coming through to specifications; and that the machines are in proper order. Warren Steele: His superintendent is Jack Spencer , superintendent of machines , his foreman is Earl Wolfe, and he is under the immediate supervision of William Caldwell, night foreman. In the whole department there are approximately 45 to 50 men and there are approximately 35 to 40 men in Steele's group . Steelesetsup the machines , instructs , and assists any employees in his group with their work problems . Steele does no production work himself. He makes sure that the work coming from the machine stays within the standard with the assistance of the inspection department . The company bulletin board listed him as line foreman. From the job sheet that Foreman Wolfe receives , he prepares prints which include the job and the individual who is to do the job for both the day and night shifts . These prints are then distributed to the various employees by the individuals classified by the company as group leaders or setup men. At the beginning of his shift Steele checks the employees on the day shift to see if there is any work left for the night shift employees and if there does not appear to be sufficient work Steele hands additional prints to the night shift employees. If an employee on the night shift runs out of work he goes to Foreman Caldwell for a work assignment; in Caldwell 's absence he goes to Steele. 17 Steele testified that Caldwell advised him that whenever it was necessary for him to be absent that he was to be in charge of his department. Joseph Brothers : His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Helfrich. In Helfrich 's department there are 50 to 60 men who are divided into different groups . Brothers at one time instructed and assisted others in setting up their machines and assigned work to them from the job sheet provided him by the foreman , but prior to the September election and at the date of the hearing Brothers has been doing bench work. 18 He may from time to time be given 1 or 2 people to work with him. A particular job is brought to Brothers in the form of a print and the material is sent to him from the stockroom . After the job comes to him Brothers looks over the print and decides what portion of it can be done in another department . He does the layout work on the job to show what is needed on a particular piece. After the job has been divided by Brothers he tells the clerk to make out a travelcard in accordance with l4Grieb 's testimony that 100 percent of his time is spent in inspection work is given no weight. ss No weight is given to the testimony of Nancy Comer, who testified Gordon seemed to be looking after the jobs of men who worked in her department on the thread machine. 16 See footnote 11, supra. 17Steele's testimony that he never assigns work is not credited. 18 No weight is given to Harry Sheeley 's testimony that prior to the September election Brothers worked in a different department than he does at the present time 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the print which lists the sequence of the different departments that the part must go to. He then has truckers, if the parts are large, or he takes it himself if the parts are small, to the station of a department. After the job is delivered to the station it is assigned by the foreman and after the particular job is completed it is returned to Brothers and he checks to see that the job is done correctly. While waiting for work to return to him Brothers will be performing various job functions such as small drill work, tapping, etc. When a job is returned and it is incorrect Brothers first attempts to correct it and if he is unsuccessful has the clerk make out a red card which lists the defects that Brothers has found, and it is returned to the station of the department from which it comes. 19 If a part comes back again after it has received a red card, Brothers then reports to his foreman and receives instruc- tions as to what he should then do about the particular part. Carl W. Roller: His superintendent is Jack Spencer. superintendent of machines, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Helfrich. Roller is an engine lathe operator . In his department there are two other lathes, both of which are not usually in operation. If both of them are, however, in operation, Roller would instruct the other operator on the operation of the machine and try to assist him in turning out the parts.20 Charles Mechlin: He is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Sikes. His present duties are to see that the heavy machinery is moved and he will instruct and direct employees in the proper way to move such machinery, e.g., he tells them whether to swing it one way or the other, where it is to stand, and where and when to stop. Chilton Gano testified that Mechlin is a very valuable man and one that the Company has considered moving in the salaried classification, the same as assistant foreman or supervisor. Joseph Hupman: He is under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson. There are four employees in his department, 409, incoming inspection department. Ida Pencil testified that Hupman told her what to do. Chilton Gano testified that Hupman's duties would be similar to those of Merrill Kunkle and Clarence Stoltz. Milton Barrett: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly, and he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Len Lavendar. There are 35 to 40 employees in his department. Barrett instructs in the methods of assembly; he will instruct and assist the employees in any problem that arises. Lewis Hinkle testified that both Lavendar and Barrett assigned work to the employees. and in Lavendar's absence Barrett alone assigns the work. Walter Clark: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly; he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Paul Ingleman. He is in the stoker department and there are from 4 to 6 employees in this department. When an employee first begins to work in the department he is instructed as to his job duties by Clark. Clark is the oldest man in the department and when a man does not do his work correctly it is corrected by Clark. The orders for work are placed on a bench in the department and all the men in the department, including Clark, look through the work and whoever is familiar with the work gets it out. For approximately 19 years Clark has taken inventory. Murray sets up the inventory schedule and the time for doing it, when it is to be done, and how. Murray assigns to Clark the men to work with him. Clark, along with the men designated to take inventory with him, actually participates in the counting. The inventory is done during the last month of each year. Robert Parks: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines; he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Earl Wolfe. Parks' principal duties are the making of carboloy tools, the grinding and repairing of them for the turret lathes, and for the other departments where these tools are used. He has been in this department for 12 years and he instructs anyone new coming into the department as to his job duties. At the present time there are 2 employees in the department. When anyone from another department wants tools ground they bring them to Parks' department and leave them on a bench and the tools are ground by Parks and the 2 other men in his department as they get to them. Whenever they want a tool ground a specified way Parks or the other 2 men are informed.2i Eugene Benbow: He is under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson and Assistant Chief Inspector Herman Stevenson. He is in department 405 and there are about 16 employees in this department. Mary J. Byerman testified that Benbow was her supervisor. 19 Another employee may work on the part after it receives a red card 2eNo evidence was introduced by the Petitioner or the Intervenor as to Roller's duties. 21Sherman Voorhees' testimony that Parks never grinds tools is given no weight. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 575 She later testified that she considered a supervisor the same as a group leader and that if her group leader said, "Everyone is busy and there are some pieces come up all right, you inspect this, why then I would have to inspect it." It is Benbow's responsibility to see that the work in his department is dispatched to the different departments, that the work gets out on time and that the work is correct. James Brandel and Lawrence McIntire contact Benbow, who is a first-piece inspector, as to whether the first part off the machine is defective and he has the authority to accept or reject the part. As to the amount of routine inspection work he does, it will depend on how many people are off or how busy the depart- ment happens to be. All new inspectors in the department are instructed by him. Benbow has been given the authority to write a pass out by Johnson if an employee wants to leave the building. If an inspector in his department brings a part to Benbow that the inspector thinks is defective, and if Benbow agrees, he takes it to the chief inspector or assistant chief inspector. He has a certain tolerance on whether he can or can not accept a particular part. Benbow gets a job sheet from Johnson and assigns the work to the different inspectors in the department from it. If an inspector does not understand his work Benbow tries to explain it to him. If Benbow is unsuccessful in determining the difficulty he then contacts the chief inspector or assistant chief inspector. Robert Wiegle: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines; his foreman is Carl Bagford, and he is under the immediate supervision of Harold Baker, night foreman. There are around 20 employees in Wiegle's department. Chilton Gano testified that Bagford sets up the Gleason spiral bevels, generators and grinders, assists and instructs the other employees in this department, assigns work to the employees under the direction of his foreman, and that as he works on the second shift there is very seldom any change of work in that department during the night. 22 Bernard Lokcinski: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his immediate supervisors are Foreman Rodney Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell McKee. There are approximately 15 operators in Lokcroski's department. He operates a machine whenever an operator calls him over and tells him it isn't running right and then he goes over and sees what the trouble is. He assists in setting up and sets up the machines for the other operators in the department if the operator is not qualified to set up the machine for himself; he instructs the operators on the machine. He receives a "hot" or job sheet from McKee, assistant foreman. In addition to Lokcinski's department McKee has approxi- mately 4 other departments, and will spend at the most 1 hour in Lokcinski's department. After Lokcinski receives the job sheet he assigns the work to the various operators from it. 23 If an operator's work is defective or improper Lokcinski checks to see if he can correct it, but if he is unsuccessful he goes to the foreman or assistant foreman. If a job which comes off the machine is improper and Lokcinski sees that the job can not be run after the machine has been set up, the job automatically goes off the machine and Lokcinski reports this fact to the assistant foreman. If a man finishes a particular job on one machine Lokcinski takes the next job from the "critical" sheet and assigns it to the operator. 24 Lokcroski testified that at the prior election he told the Board agent that he was in charge of 15 employees. J. M. Payne: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of machines. His immediate supervisor is Foreman Leo Morris. Around February 1952 Payne took sick and was absent from work until the latter part of June 1952. Since that time he has worked on a part-time basis doing light bench work, which is sheet metal layout.25 The foreman will bring a particular drawing over to the work bench before the operation is started. The foreman will check the drawing with Payne or whoever is working with him. At the time of the hearing there was one other employee working at the bench besides Payne. Morris 22 Sherman Voorhees testimony without contradiction that Foreman Francis Smith of the gleason department introduced Wiegle to him as his supervisor at night. 23Lokcinski's testimony that the assistant foreman. McKee, first tells him, after he gives him the job sheet, what part to give to a particular machine is not credited Z4Lokcinski's testimony that he must first contact his foreman or assistant foreman before assigning the job is not credited. 25 Superintendent Gano's testimony that Payne also sets up brakes or any other special job that does not have standard tooling apparently is erroneous as Payne credibly testified that these were his duties prior to February 1952, but since his return in the latter part of June 1952 his work has been confined solely to his bench 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD will then issue a requisition for the particular metal required from the stockroom. The stockroom, in return, brings the metal over to the shear department, the metal is sheared and then Payne, or whoever is working with him, will start their operation. Payne is the oldest employee in the department and he will assist and instruct any other employee doing his type of work. Alvin Dillon: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines; his foreman is Carl Bagford,26 and he is under the immediate supervision of Harold Baker, night foreman. There are approximately 20 employees in this department. Chilton Gano testified that Dillon sets up Fellowes gear shaper machines, repairs them for the next job, instructs the operators, and he assigns the work to the machines according to the direction of the foreman. ZT All the challenges in group I are hourly rated employees. Chilton Gano, however, testified that several admitted foremen or assistant foremen were also hourly paid. All the challenges in group I are classified 320 with the exception of Ernest Poole, Charles Mechlin, Charles Crosbie, and John Schmidlin. Poole and Mechlin are classified 335 and Crosbie and Schmidlin are classified 330. Chilton Gano testified that classification 320 covers setup men, leadmen or group leaders, and employees because of their particular ability or skill in operation of a particular machine; that the leadman or group leader is practically synonymous with a setup man, both do the same chores, with the exception that a setup man covers machinery; group leaders or leadmen cover process or assembly, which is another form of process. Gano further testified that classification 335 covers assistant supervisors or foremen, and some few people who through extreme ability and long service developed worth to the Company equivalent to that of an assistant supervisor or foreman and that classification 330 covers tool and die makers. However, whether or not supervisory authority exists must be determined by an examination of the duties and responsibilities attached to a particular job category of employees. 28 Testimony was offered to show that some of the challenges in group I voted in a prior Board ordered election the latter part of 1947. The fact, however, that an employee was permitted to vote in a representation election is not determinative of the employee's status as a nonsupervisory employee. 29 Over objections of the challengees and the Company, testimony for the most part was denied as to the duties of certain employees not challenged, whose duties it was contended were similar to the challenges in group I. This contention in effect constitutes a post-election challenge to the vote of the employees. Under established policy of the Board and the courts, such a challenge may nor be entertained.9D The undersigned finds none of the challenges in group I have the authority to hire,transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, award or discipline other employees, or to effectively recommend such action. The undersigned further finds that none of the employees with the exception of Walter Bunker have the authority to adjust employees' grievances or to effectively recommend such action. John Weng testified he told his foreman that if he wanted to get a job out, somebody besides Schmidt, the employee in question, would have to be put on the lob, because Schmidt had only worked 3 days out of 2 weeks. After this discussion Schmidt was later taken from Weng's department. The record, however, does not show whether Schmidt, the employee in question, was discharged, quit or transferred to another department. Too, even if it could be construed that Weng effectively recommended the discharge or transfer of the employee in question, a single recommendation is not enough for a basis that an employee exercises supervisory authority under the Act. ai Clarence Holman testified that if an employee would not do a job that was assigned to him, he would tell the plant superintendent, but that such an occasion had never arisen. As Holman has never reported to a higher authority that a man is not performing his duties correctly, it cannot now be determined how effectively his recommendations would be. i6Bagford remains in the department only a short time after the night shift begins. 27Dillon's testimony as to his duties is not credited. See footnote 11, supra. 26 See William C Meredith Co., Inc , 74 NLRB 1064. Z9See Valentine Sugars, Inc , 102 NLRB 313. 3OSee N. L. R B. v. A. J. Tower Company, 329 U S 324: John Deere Killefer Company, 86 NLRB 1073. Si See General Motors Corporation, 78 NLRB 72. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 577 Charles McClurg testified, without contradiction, that at the September election Mechlin, when asked by the Board agent, Maxwell, if he could hire certain people, replied, "Yes, in certain skills." When he needed a certain skilled man and knew where there was one, he could hire him. When Maxwell asked him to give her a reference, Mechlin said, "If I knew where there was a block layer--and I knew where one was, I could hire him." 'Ilse Board agent asked Mechlin if he could discharge an employee who proved unsatisfactory. Mechlin replied, "Well. I guess I could." The above hearsay and conjectural testimony can support no finding that an individual can hire and fire an employee. David Tritch testified that Clarence Stultz related to him a conversation that Stultz had with Chief Inspector Johnson, at which time Johnson asked Stultz if Tritch's work warranted a raise, and that Stultz replied, "Tritch's work was good and he should have a raise," that Stultz then told Tritch that his raise should come through in the next 2 weeks. It appears from the above testimony that Stultz was not recommending a raise, but was merely giving his opinion as to Tritch's work qualities in response to an inquiry by a supervisor. 32 Walter Clark testified that an employee needed more money and inquired of him how he would go about getting a raise ; that he suggested that the employee see Joe Runyan, the grievance man, and that the employee asked him to see Runyan for him; that he said to the employee that if he spoke to Runyan he would speak for himself; that he spoke to Runyan about the employee's raise and Runyan suggested that he speak to Superintendent Murray; that Clark being an older man Murray would listen to him. Clark further testified he didn't speak to Murray, but the employee received a raise. The above testimony only shows that Clark, being an older employee, was merely aiding a fellow employee and that the employee received his raise without Clark ever contacting the supervisor. Charles Runyan testified that he asked Superintendent Murray if he would listen to Bunker and Clark in regard to raises and Murray stated he would listen to them. Runyan further testified that this was as far as he ever got with Superintendent Murray on hiring and firing. The fact that a supervisor will listen to an employee as to whether another employee-should be granted a raise does not establish an effective recommendation. Bernard Lokcinski testified that if an operator is not performing a job according to directions, he reports this fact to the assistant foreman or foremen, but this is all he has to say in the matter. The above testimony does not establish effective recommendations as to the discipline of employees. The undersigned finds on the basis of their duties as set out above that Charles Crosbie, Albert Kadle, John Schmidlin, Howard Callison, T. J. Willis, Lawrence Gordon, Joseph Brothers, Carl W. Roller, Walter Clark, Robert Parks, and J. M. Payne do not have the authority to assign or responsibly direct other employees, or to effectively recommend such action. The duties that Albert Kadle and John Schmidlin perform during their foremen's absence are too infrequent and sporadic to find that they assign or responsibly direct other employees, or effectively recommend such action.33 Although Walter Clark instructs new employees when they come into the department and corrects their work if done incorrectly, Robert Parks instructs new employees when they come into the department and J. M. Payne will assist and instruct new employees working with him, the record established that practically all of their time is spent in performing the same types of work as employees who work with them perform. Their relationship to the employees working with them would appear to be similar to that of a master craftsman to an apprentice. The undersigned also finds on the basis of their duties, as set out above, that Joseph Loeffler, Lawrence McIntire, Ralph Calhoun, John Weng, Roy Roach, Clarence Holman, Ernest Poole, Arthur Stoops, Merrill Kunkle, Clarence Stoltz, Robert Sintz, Robert Grieb, Theodore McCabe, James Brandle, William Chatfield, Warren Steele, Joseph Hupman, Milton Barrett, Eugene Benbow, Robert Wiegle, Bernard Lokcinski, and Alvin Dillon have the authority to assign and responsibly direct other employees and the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. as aSee also General Motors Corporation, supra. 33See American Window Glass Company, 77 NLRB 1030. Forney Engineering Company, 88 NLRB 204. Puerto Rico Glass Company, 101 NLRB 1347. 84See Tidewater Associated Oil Company, 101 NLRB 570; Ohio Power Company, 176 F 2d 385; Budd Manufacturing Company, 169 F. 2d 57. 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The undersigned further finds on the basis of their duties as set out above , that Clifford Wright and Charles Mechlin have the authority to responsibly direct other employees and the exercise of such authority is not of a routine or clerical nature and requires the use of independent judgment. 38 The undersigned further finds on the basis of his duties as set out above that Walter Bunker has the authority to assign , responsibly direct other employees , and to discuss their griev- ances, and the exercise of such authority is not of a routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. 38 B. Group III Alma A. Snyder: This employee types, files blueprints and the written reports that the inspectors make out, and issues requisitions for supplies- for the inspection department. After a part has been rejected by an inspector she takes the part, writes it up on a reject form which shows that it has been scrapped. si Ida Pencil: This employee keeps a record of all material that comes through the receiving department. After an inspector inspects a part they give her an inspection report to file. From the part she gets the part numbers and types up a report for material certification. She types up and files any records that are necessary to be made on a particular part. Miss Pencil testified that no other person in her department does the same type of work that she does; that the inspectors inspect and she takes care of the paper work. Mary Byerman: This employee takes a part that has been rejected by an inspector and makes a scrap ticket on it. After rejection of the part has been approved she discards it. She takes all "A" and "B" parts and makes and keeps a record of them; she files blue- prints. When there is an inspection job to be done and there are no other inspectors avail- able, which is a rare occasion, she has been asked to inspect a particular part. Rosetta Brinkman: This employee keeps a record of all parts that come in and go out of the department. She keeps a, record of the tardiness and absenteeism of the operators. She does not keep a record of or handle any parts that have been rejected by the inspectors.38 The undersigned further finds that on the basis of the duties set out above that Alma Snyder, Ida Pencil, Mary Byerman, and Rosetta Brinkman, all assigned job classification 95, inspectors second class, are primarily clerical employees. 39 C. Group IV Paul Gochenauer: Gochenauer's principal dunes are general maintenance work such as painting, plumbing, and, upon rare occasions, electrical work. He performs guard duty strictly on emergency basis, and while a regular guard was off sick for 2 weeks during 1952 Gochenauer substituted for him. During the last year Gochenauer spent about 6 weeks in all in the performance of guard duties.40 On the basis of his duties set out above Paul Gochenauer is engaged primarily in maintenance work. The Board has held in a long series of cases that to be a guard within the meaning of the Act, an employee must spend more than 50 percent of his time in work that conforms to the statutory description. 41 35 See Ohio Power Company, supra; Budd Manufacturing Company, supra. 36 See Iowa Public Service Company, 102 NLRB 1667; Tidewater Associated Oil Company, supra; Ohio Power Company, supra Budd Manufacturing Company, supra. 3 Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson testified that Alma Snyder spends 50 percent of her time inspecting. However, it is clear by his later testimony that he considers the job of inspection, the taking of a part that has been rejected by an inspector and writing it up on a rejection form. 3s Chief Inspector Johnson's testimony that except for one-half hour a day, the time required to record absenteeism, Brinkman performed direct manual inspection work, not salvage work, is not credited. 39See W. C. Norris Manufacturer, Inc., 73 NLRB 838. 40 Guard duties performed were to stand at the plant gate and check employees' badges, and have the employees sign a register before they enter the plant and to see that on leaving the plant an employee does not punch out another's timecard. 4i See Wiley Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 40. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 579 CONCLUSIONS Group I The undersigned finds that Charles Crosbie, Albert Kadle,john Schmidlin, Howard Callison, T. J. Willis, Lawrence Gordon, Joseph Brothers,CarlW. Roller, Walter Clark, Robert Parks, and J. M. Payne are not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.' The undersigned further finds that Joseph Loeffler, Lawrence McIntire, Ralph Crlhoun, John Weng, Roy Roach, Clarence Holman, Clifford Wright, Ernest Poole, Arthur Stoops, Merill Kunkle, Walter Bunker, Clarence Stultz, Robert Sintz, Robert Grieb, Theodore McCabe, James Brandle, William Chatfield, Warren Steele, Clarence Mechlin, Joseph Hupman, Milton Barrett, Eugene Benbow, Robert Wiegle, Bernard Lokcinski, and Alvin Dillon are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. In reaching my conclusion as to the above group of employees, the undersigned is not unmindful of Steel Products Engineering Company, 76 NLRB 318, in which the Board held that leadmen and group leaders were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and included them together with setup men in the bargaining unit, but the present record shows that this is not now the situation as to all of the employees in that classification. Group III The undersigned further finds that Alma Snyder, Ida Pencil, Mary Byerman, and Rosetta Brinkman are factory clerical employees. Group IV The undersigned further finds that Paul Gochenauer is not a guard within the meaning of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon all the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the challenges to the ballots of Charles Crosbie, Albert Kadle, John Schmidlm, Howard Callison, T. J. Willis, Lawrence Gordon, Joseph Brothers, Carl W. Roller, Walter Clark, Robert Parks, J. M. Payne, and Paul Gochenauer be overruled and that their ballots be opened, counted, and as a result thereof, included in a revised tally of ballots. Upon all the foregoing, the undersigned further recommends that challenges to the ballots of Joseph Loeffler, Lawrence McIntire, Ralph Calhoun, John Weng, Roy Roach, Clarence Holman, Clifford Wright, Ernest Poole, Arthur Stoops, Merrill Kunkle, Walter Bunker, Clarence Stultz, Robert Sintz, Robert Grieb, Theodore McCabe, James Brandle, William Chatfield, Warren Steele, Charles Mechlin, Joseph Hupman, Milton Barrett, Eugene Benbow, Robert Wiegle, Bernard Lokcinski, Alvin Dillon, Alma Snyder, Ida Pencil, Mary Byerman, and Rosetta Brinkman be sustained. Any party may, within ten (10) days from receipt of this report, file with the Board in Washington, D. C., an original and 6 copies of exceptions. Immediately upon filing of such exceptions the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director, Ninth Region. 42Section 2 (11) of the Act states: "The term 'supervisor' means 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 them 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 " 322615 0 - 54 - 38 -