Meier Electric & Machine Co., Inc.

MEIER ELECTRIC & MACHINE CO., INC. 143 ployees, to grant time off, or to assign employees to the different departments in the Employer ' s business . Both direct their subordinates in the performance of their duties, which were testified as routine . However, both may recommend that an employee be transferred out of their respective departments to some task elsewhere in the company. One instance was cited in which Harves recommended that an employee be discharged, but this employee was merely trans- ferred to a different department. Harves and Sloan both spend a comparatively small percentage of their time directing employees , and spend the large remainder of their time in physical work or in clerical and checking duties. We conclude on these facts that Harves and Sloan are not supervisors, and shall therefore include them in the unit. Accordingly , we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All truckdrivers , truck helpers , packers , and warehousemen of the Employer at its Indianapolis , Indiana, plant , including the warehouse foreman and the crating foreman, but excluding vehicle mechanics , office clerical employees , guards , profes- sional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. MEIER ELECTRIC & MACHINE CO., INC. and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS , CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 35-RC-932. Novem- ber 20, 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 Bruce Gillis, Jr., hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 cer- tain 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. 107 NLRB No. 43. 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Indianapolis , Indiana , ventilating fan and heater manufacturing plant, including truckdrivers , but excluding all office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer agrees with the com- position of the unit and would include eight employees v3hom the Petitioner would exclude as supervisors . The disputed employees are Maynard Hobbs , David Robinson , Russel Abbot, Hardy Drullinger , Joe Robbins , Marion Trinkle, Virgil Hanshew, and Richard Russell. Maynard Hobbs, David Robinson, and Russell Abbot are setup men in the Employe r's press department and spend approximate - ly half their time in setup work and the remainder in produc- tion and maintenance work. Although they receive a higher hourly wage than other employees in the press department, they do not have the authorityto hire, discharge , discipline , or other- wise affect the status of any employees, nor do they have the authority effectively to recommend such action . Theymay select an employee in the press department to operate a certain ma- chine within the department after receiving instructions from the pressroom foreman to place the machine in operation. Hardy Drullinger is a setup man in the Employer 's shear de- partment under the supervision of Jim Walls. There are 3 employees in the department in addition to Drullinger . Drullinger does the setup work and, when directed by the foreman to place a shearing machine in operation , Drullinger selects 1 of the other 3 men to operate the machine . He has no authority to hire, discharge , discipline , or otherwise affect the status of em- ployees in that department, nor does he have the authority ef- fectively to recommend such action . The record indicates that although Drullinger was present at the time an employee was dis - charged in the shear department , Foreman Walls independently discharged the employee without any recommendation from Drullinger. Joe Robbins is a group leader in the Employer ' s heater and small fan assembly department , comprising approximately 14 to 18 employees . He receives $ 1.55 per hour, which is less than that received by some of the other employees in the assembly department . He spends approximately 60 percent of his time in production work. He has no authority to hire, dis- charge, or discipline employees in that department , nor does he have the authority effectively to recommend such action. Upon advice from the foreman , Robbins assigns employees in the assembly department to various tasks withinthe depart- ment and transfers employees to different jobs in the department when the need arises. However, these employees are engaged in an unskilled , assembly-line operation. Overtime work in the department is assigned by the assembly-department foreman or, in his absence , by the plant superintendent. When the foreman and plant superintendent are absent , Robbins assigns overtime work to employees, but this happens only occasionally. MEIER ELECTRIC & MACHINE CO., INC. 145 Time off has been granted by Robbins on two occasions during the term of his employment but on one of these occasions he merely concurred in action already taken by the personnel department. Marion S. Trinkle works in the window fan assembly depart- ment, which at the time of the hearing was operating with 3 or 4 employees engaged in off-season repair work. Although he receives 15 to 20 cents more an hour than other employees in the department, this wage differential is based on the fact that Trinkle was formerly an inspector and is still receiving the wage of an inspector. He distributes the work among the other employees; no skill or training is required for this work. He has no authority to hire, discharge, or discipline the employees in the repair department, nor does he have the authority effectively to recommend such action. Virgil Hanshew is a leadman in the Employer's paint spray department- -which department operates in conjunction with the fan and heater assembly department. Although he receives 10 cents more per hour than other employees in the paint- spray department, he spends most of his time in production work. He has no authority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees in this department, nor does he have the authority effectively to recommend such action. He distributes the work in the department on the basis of the availability of the man for the job. Richard Russell is a setup man and riveting-machine operator in the Employer's 35-man propellor department under the direction of Foreman Sandler. Russell has no authority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees in the propellor department, nor does he have the authority effectively to recom- mend such action. He has no authority to direct or assign employees to any tasks nor has he ever exercised such authority. All of the above-mentioned disputed employees receive an hourly wage, while the various departmental foremen are paid a salary. Under all these circumstances, we find that Maynard Hobbs, David Robinson, Russell Abbot, Hardy Drullinger, Marion S. Trinkle, Virgil Hanshew, and Richard Russell are not super- visors as defined in the Act, because their only authority ap- pears to be that of routine direction or assignment of em- ployees to various tasks within their own departments.' We find also that Joe Robbins' direction of other employees is merely routine and does not require the exercise of inde- pendent judgment. While he sporadically substitutes for the foreman of the assembly department, that is not sufficient basis for finding him to be a supervisor. We shall, therefore, include him in the unit.' ' The Englander Company, Inc., 100 NLRB 164; Charles N. Ingram and Mary C. Ingram, d/b/a Charles Ingram Lumber Company, 100 NLRB 440; P. R. Mallory & Co., Inc., 101 NLRB No. 10. 2 Wayside Press, 104 NLRB 1028; Coastal Plywood & Timber Company, 102 NLRB 263. 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act: All production and maintenance employees' at the Employer's Indianapolis, Indiana, plant, including truckdrivers, but exclud- ing watchmen-janitors, 4 and all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer's operations are seasonal in nature and the peak season extends from about the first of November to July or August. At the time of the hearing (September 1 and 2, 1953) there were approximately 130 to 140 employees at the Employer's plant. The Employer plans to add 50 or 60 em- ployees to the present complement between October 15, 1953, and November 1, 1953. The Employer requests that any election directed by the Board be delayed until such time as the new employees will be able to vote. As this decision will issue at a time when the Employer's production will be at its seasonal peak, we see no reason to depart from our usual practice of directing an immediate election. The Petitioner contends that employees laid off since May 1, 1953, for lack of work have been only temporarily laid off and are eligible to vote. The Employer disagrees and contends those employees have been permanently discharged and are not eligible to vote. The record indicates that 90 per- cent of the Employer's production jobs can be learned in less than an hour's time and any employees laid off after the peak season are not recalled for work during the next seasonal peak. The Employer solicits new employees every season by newspaper ads and through the United States Employment Service rather than recalling laid-off employees. Although 9 of the 50 employees laid off in May are now working in the plant, these employees were rehired as new applicants and not as temporarily laid-off employees. Under all these circurn- stances, we find that the employees laid off on or about May 1, 1953, and who have not been rehired on the eligibility date fixed herein have no reasonable expectation of reemployment at the Employer's plant and are, therefore, not eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 Included in the unit as production and maintenance employees, are: Maynard Hobbs, David Robinson, Russell Abbot, Hardy Drullinger, Marion S. Trinkle, Virgil Hanshew, Richard Russell, and Joe Robbins. 4Contrary to the stipulation of the parties, we find for the reasons set forth in Walterboro Mfg. Co., 106 NLRB 1383, that the 3 watchmen- janitors, who spend over 50 percent of their time in janitorial duties, are guards within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude them from the unit. 5 Warner Brothers Company, 83 NLRB 191.