The Murray Co.

In the Matter of THE MURRAY COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL 1015 Case No. B-4664 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES I July 9,1943 On May 27, 1943, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order 1 in this proceeding, vacating and setting aside the election held on February 4, 194$, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election, issued January 14, 1943 2 On June 8, 1943, the Board issued a Second Supplemental Decision and Second Direction of Election wherein it directed a second elec- tion. Pursuant to the Second Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 17, 1943, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas). On June 18, 1943, the Regional Director, acting pur- suant to Article III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, issued an Election Re- port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported as follows : Approximate number of eligible voters-------------------- 100.0% Total ballots cast--------------------------------------- 96.9% Total ballots challenged--------------------------------- 3.0% Total void ballots-------------------------------------- 001o Total valid votes cast----------------------------------- 100.0% Votes cast for International Association of Machinists, Local 1015-------------------------------------------- 41.2% Votes cast for United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.) 57.8% Votes cast for neither----------------------------------- 1.0% On June 21, 1943, the International Association of Machinists, Local 1015, herein called the I. A. M., filed objections to the Election 149 N. L. R. B. 1225. 2 46 N. L. It. B. 1097. 51 N. L. R. B., No. 44. 195 540612-44-vol. 51-14 _ _- I96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Report. The Regional Director investigated the objections of the I. A. M. and on June 28, 1943, issued his Report on Objections to the Election Report. The I. A. M. contends that The Murray Company, herein called the Company, discriminated against the 1. A. M. by (1) threatening certain set-up men, members of the I. A. M., with discharge if they carried on any union activities on or off the Company's property; (2) interfering with the right of an I. A. M. committeeman to carry on normal union activities in that it restrained him from talking to anyone in the shop and prevented him from leaving his machine; (3) permitting members of the United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.), herein called the C. I. 0., to distribute C. I. O. literature on company property during working hours, while at the same time denying the similar privilege of distributing union literature by I. A. M. members. The first contention involves it meeting called by the Company's plant manager which was attended by all foremen and supervisors and the following, set-up men : Z. W. Anderson, N. L. DeBord, and Jimmie Folse. The Regional Director's report shows that on June 3, 1943, such a conference was called for the purpose of advising the participants of their obligations under the Board's Supplemental Decision and Order. In the course of this conference the plant man- ager read a prepared statement to the group cautioning them, under the penalty of immediate discharge, against making any statements or committing any acts which might be construed as discriminatory against any labor organization. The manager reaffirmed the Com- pany's declaration of neutrality on labor matters and said, in part: The Company does not care, and this has been made clear previously, whether the C. I. O. wins the election, whether the A. F. of L. wins the election, or whether the results of the election show that the Shell Shop employees do not want to be bound to either of these agencies as their bargaining agent. We tried prior to,-the other election to keep you gentlemen in the position of maintaining a "hands off" attitude. It is now our purpose to see that you do maintain this position, and we are going to see that you maintain this position if you stay in the employ of this company. . . . Some of you gentlemen are not designated by us as foremen or supervisors, but it has been determined that it is not necessary that we designate an employee as a foreman or supervisor for him to be looked on as such by the National Labor Relations Board. If an employee gives instructions, which are carried out, then this employee may be looked on as supervisory personnel. In our opinion, any of you gentlemen present might be ,placed in that category. I am taking this means of again THE MURRAY COMPANY 197 informing you that from this hour forward all supervisory per- sonnel of The Murray Company must, if they remain in the employ of this company, maintain an absolute "hands off" policy as to labor affiliations by statements, acts, or otherwise. On the same day of the conference a list was posted by the Company in its Shell Shop enumerating those employees whom the Company considered to be its supervisory employees. This list omitted the names of Anderson, DeBord, and Folse. The Company states that its purpose in omitting their names from the list was due to its changed plans of concentrating supervision into the hands of those whose names appeared on the list, but that prior to June 3 it felt that the employees had considered Anderson, DeBoard, and Folse as supervisory em- ployees. Z. W. Anderson. Several of the employees operating machines serv- iced by Anderson stated that they considered him to be their super- visor and they reported their grievances to him. One employee stated that as late as the week prior to the issuance of the Report on Objec- tions she had asked Anderson for permission to take off a few days. Anderson did not say anything at the moment but came back in a few minutes and gave her permission. She also stated that on several occasions when i1; was necessary for her to be late on her shift she had called to so advise Anderson and that he always told her it was- "all right." Another employee stated that he considered Anderson to be a supervisor because about 6 weeks prior to the Report on Objections it became necessary for him to leave an hour earlier than usual and that he asked Anderson for his permission, to which Anderson replied "Go ahead." Anderson denies that he is a supervisor, insisting that he is merely a set-up man for eight machines which are operated by eight em- ployees. He admits, however, that some time ago his foreman had listed him as a supervisor and that he did take grievances or requests for leave by the operators to his foreman. N. L. DeBord states that he is the set-up man for 12 machines operated by 12 employees. He states that he changes the operators from one machine to the other according to his best judgment; that he receives 15 cents an hour more than the machine operators; that he considers the operators as "my crew"; that should an operator not be, able to perform his work well, he would take the employee and report the whole matter to the foreman; and that if any of the operators want to be off for a day, or if they have any grievances, they come to him about them, and,that he in turn goes to the foreman with the matter. Jimmie Folse is the set-up man on the second shift and occupies identically the same position occupied by Anderson on the first shift. 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He states that the operators look to him for instructions; that they let him know when they are going to take time off; and that they also discuss personnel matters with him, which he in turn'takes up with his foreman; that his duties require him to see that the opera- tors produce, and that he "gets after them" if they lag behind; that although he cannot hire or fire, he considers himself a supervisor, and that on January 1, 1943, he caused the discharge of a machine operator who refused to abide by his instructions; that the foreman had listed Anderson and himself as supervisors on the cards in the bulletin board rack and until about 2 days prior to the speech given by the plant manager; and that the other employees could have seen and "I imagine they did see" these postings. The second. allegation of the I. A. M. involves an incident in which Anderson and C. W. Hodde, assistant superintendent of the Shell Plant, figured. Hodde states that on June 8 he told Anderson to discontinue talking to other employees in other portions of the Com- pany's Shell Plant, and that he required him to remain in his own machine area. Hodde also states that his talk with Anderson was necessitated by Anderson's having previously engaged in unnecessary conversation with other employees in other portions of the plant and that on the day of his admonition he had found Anderson visiting in several different portions of the plant carrying on conversations with other employees, and that he felt that Anderson was abusing his talking privileges and should be attending to the machines. Hodde states that he did not direct Anderson to cease talking about unions on or off the job, but that he did expect Anderson to refrain from union activities pursuant to the instructions of the plant manager. Anderson insists that Hodde had restrained him from campaigning or talking about the I. A. M. on or off the job, but admitted that this action did not change his previous plans with regard to voting at the polls. The third allegation of the I. A. M. involves Lochia Hyde and O. T. Pirtle. Hyde stated that the only literature which she brought into the plant was one copy of the C. I. O.'s "Steelworker" publication. Pirtle states that he had brought approximately five handbills into the plant and left them on the work table. Both of these employees are non-supervisory production employees of the Company. There is no evidence to the effect that the I. A. M. endeavored to engage in union campaigning or other concerted activities which were restrained in any manner by the Company, or that there was any disparity in treatment as between adherents of the I. A. M. and the C. 1. 0. THE MURRAY COMPANY CONCLUSION 199 We agree with the Regional Director's recommendation that Z. W. Anderson, N. L. LeBord, and Jimmie Folse were properly restrained by the Company from engaging in or carrying on union activities, as these employees are considered supervisory employees by the ma- chine operators working in their respective sections of the plant; that they do effect changes in the status of these employees and effec- tively recommend the disciplining or discharge of such employees; and that the nominal activities carried on by Lochia Hyde and O. T. Pirtle, non-supervisory production employees, did not constitute dis- criminatory treatment between the two organizations. We therefore find that the objections filed by the I. A. M. have no merit, and they are hereby overruled. Since the challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election, we find it unnecessary to make any determination with respect to them. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.) has been designated and selected by a majority of all pro- dduction and maintenance employees of The Murray Company, Dallas, 'Texas, in its Shell Plant, but excluding stockkeepers, timekeepers, guards, and clerical and supervisory employees, as their representa- tive for the purpose of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, United Steelworkers of America (C. I. O.) is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.