Tennessee Knitting Mills, Inc.

628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TENNESSEE KNITTING MILLS, INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HO- SIERY WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1O-RC-2702. July 30,1954 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John S. Patton, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 em- ployees 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's Columbia, Tennessee, plant. The parties agree that such a unit with the usual exclusions is appropriate. How- ever, without taking any definite position with regard to certain em- ployees, the parties placed in issue the status of these employees, re- questing that the Board rule on their unit placement. Guards F. Cathey and M. Davison: These employees are classified as watch- men. They spend most of their time performing ordinary production work. On weekends Cathey and Dawson are given the keys to the plant and are responsible for controlling admissions to the plant. They may in their discretion permit any tardy employees or other persons to enter the plant. They also have authority to evict em- ployees for misconduct. Under these circumstances, we find that Cathey and Dawson are guards within the meaning of the Act and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.' C. Street, W. Baker, and E. Brown: These employees are classified as thread boys and spend most of their time performing regular pro- duction work. During the week, they are responsible for locking and unlocking the plant gates at the change of shifts. Although there is no evidence that they have any authority during the day to exclude persons seeking admission to the plant, it is clear that they do exercise such authority at night, subject to the directions of the night super- intendent. In view of the foregoing, we find that the thread boys are guards within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude them. 1 Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 107 NLRB No. 241, at 2-3 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). 109 NLRB No. 79. TENNESSEE KNITTING MILLS, INC. 629 Alleged Supervisors J. Malugin: This employee is classified as "miscellaneous throwing" and performs machine repair work in the throwing department on the 11 p. m. to 7 a. in. shift. He has no authority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees or effectively to recommend such action. How- ever, he does transmit instructions to throwing department employees during the 1 a. m. to 7 a. m. period when there is no floorlady or other supervisor on duty. In giving orders to the other employees, Malugin does not exercise any independent judgment but merely relays instruc tions given to him by the floorlady. He has no authority to discipline an employee for refusing to carry out orders but is required, in case of insubordination or other misconduct, to refer the matter to the floorlady of the first shift. Under these circumstances, we find that Malugin is not a supervisor and shall include him in the unit. F. Rich: This employee is classified as a knitter. In the past he regularly worked as a supervisor during certain overtime periods. However, such work has been discontinued with only small prospect of its being resumed in the foreseeable future. Rich does not attend supervisors' meetings. In view of the foregoing, we find that Rich is not a supervisor and shall include him. J. L. Thompson: This employee works on the air-conditioning and heating system. A question concerning his supervisory status was raised because in isolated instances he requests the office to provide him with a helper. However, the relationship between Thompson and his helpers is merely that of the skilled to the unskilled worker. Thompson does not attend supervisors' meetings, may not hire, dis- charge, or discipline, or effectively recommend such action. In view of the foregoing, we find that Thompson is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and we shall accordingly include him. C. Witherow and W. Derryberry: The Employer requested that the Board specifically rule on the status of these employees. In a previous case involving the same parties,3 the Board found that With- erow and Derryberry were not supervisors and included them in the unit. At the hearing in the present proceeding, it was testified that there had been no change in the duties of these employees. Accord- ingly, we find that Witherow and Derryberry are not supervisors and shall include them. M. Kilgore, A. Dickey, and S. Osteen: These employees are full-time production workers. However, as they may substitute on occasion for admitted supervisors, the Employer requested that the Board rule on their status. The record shows that these employees substitute for floorladies not more than once or twice a year. Furthermore, even 2 The Clinton Construction Co , 107 NLRB 946 9 Tennessee Knitting Mills, Inc, 10-RC-1957 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD when so substituting, none of these employees has the authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or reprimand employees or effectively to recommend such action. As for Kilgore and Dickey, the record also shows that while substituting for the floorlady they merely carry out orders from the office. In view of the above, we find that Kilgore, Dickey, and Osteen are not supervisors and shall include them.4 Mahlon Rose: A question was raised at the hearing as to the super- visory status of this employee. The record shows that she has no authority to hire, discharge, or effectively to recommend such action, and there was no evidence that she had any of the other indicia of a supervisor. We,.therefore, find that she is not a supervisor and shall include her. We find that the following employees at the Employer's Columbia, Tennessee, plant, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical em- ployees and inspectors but excluding office employees,' professional employees, technical employees, guards, fixers, assistant fixers, fore- ladies, and all other supervisors 6 as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Deci- sion and Direction of Election. 4 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 107 NLRB 436. 5 The parties agreed that E. Gilliam , M. A. Ring, and L. M. Capps are office employees. 6 The parties stipulated at the hearing that the following persons should be excluded as supervisors : F. Cover, P. Hatch , S. Park, N. Klang, N. Harper, H. Whitehurst, M. Roscher, L. Young, W. Young, E. Young, E. Foster, S. Markham , T. Carrigan, M. R. Woodward, B. Howell, E. Jones, L. Rinks, and M. Lovett . In a previous case involving the same parties, the eligibility to vote of 33 employees was challenged on the ground that they were supervisors . Tennessee Knitting Mills, 10-RC-1033 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders ). The record in the instant case shows that of the 33 persons challenged in the former election, the following are, in addition to certain employees dis- cussed above, still employees of the Employer : M. Evans, R. Foster , G. Pugh, P. Pugh, G. Pulliam, D. London, E. Love, R. Purdon, and T. Brown . It is clear from the record that none of these employees is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. WESTERN LIGHT & TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC.' and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., C. C. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 17- RC-1787. July 30,1954. 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 Harry Irwig, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 109 NLRB No. 101.