Metal Treating Co.

656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Appendix NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re- lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with INTERNATIONAL MAILERS UNION AND INTERNATIONAL MAILERS UNION, LOCAL 141, as the exclusive rep- resentative of all the employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit : All employees in the mail room at the Times Publishing Company plant, Wichita Falls, Texas, excluding all supervisory employees and all other, employees. TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, Employer. Dated ----------------------------- By ---------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. PLASTIC MANUFACTURERES AND DESIGNERS CORP., D/B/A METAL TREAT- ING Co.' and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-750. August 15,1952 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 William G. Wilkerson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, an Indiana corporation, is engaged in the heat treating of metals and metal parts. The Employer commenced busi- ness on July 1, 1951, and during the succeeding 10-month period for, which figures were available at the time of the hearing, its purchases amounted to $21,000, of which about 10 percent was obtained directly and 50 percent indirectly from outside the State. During the same period, the Employer's sales were about $67,450, of which $48,866 represented sales to companies that were engaged in producing or handling goods destined for shipment outside the State, or performing 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the bearing. 100 NLRB No. 105. PLASTIC MANUFACTURERS AND DESIGNERS CORP. 657 services outside the State in the value of $25,000 or more per annum .2 The Employer estimated at the hearing that for the months of May and June 1952, sales to firms of this type would total between $1,000 and $1,500. The Board has determined that it will assert jurisdiction over those enterprises which ,affect commerce by virtue of the fact that they furnish goods or services necessary to the operations of other employers engaged in commerce, without regard to other factors, where such goods or services are valued at $50,000 per annum or more, and are sold to enterprises engaged in producing or handling goods destined for out-of-State shipment, or performing services outside the State, in the value of $25,000 per annum or more.3 Accordingly, as these requirements are met in the instant case,4 we find that the Employer's operations affect commerce and that it would effectuate the purposes of that Act to assume jurisdiction in this case.s 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) ant Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties agree that a production and maintenance unit, ex- cluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, the admin. istrative assistant, and the general manager, is appropriate. Howe: er, there is disagreement as to the superintendent and the assist- ant s;ir c'rintendent whom the Employer would exclude as super- visors and the Petitioner would include as employees. The superintendent directs the Employer's first shift, which consists of a truck driver and a laborer. In additio73, he gives instruction to the two laborers on the second shift. The one laborer on the third shift is directed by the assistant superintendent. Both the superin- tendent and assistant superintendent work along with the laborers to whom they give technical avice. Although the Employer contends that the superintendent and the assistant superintendent have the power to make effective recommen- 2 Although it was stipulated that about $13,000 of the Employer's remaining business was with firms outside this category, another $5,000 of sales was made to companies about which the record contains no commerce information. 3 Walter G.oBrix, Inc, 96 NLRB 519 ; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635. 4 As the Employer's estimate for the 2 months, May and June 1952, was given as between $1,000 and $1 ,500, we are adding the amount of $1,250 to $48 ,866, the total for the pre- ceding 10 months. Moreover, projection of the sales figures for the first 10 months, which are indicative of the Employer 's minimum potential for the balance of the year, yields an annual total of about $58 ,640. See Walter G. Brix, Inc., supra. B The Employer contends , however, that two-thirds of its sales to customers, who them- selves annually do $25,000 or more business outside of the State , are of a nonrecurring nature, and that its sales for the forthcoming year will fall below the $50,000 minimum requirement for the assertion of jurisdiction . As the Employer is a new enterprise with- out a fixed and long-established pattern of business , its contention is based on speculation and we therefore base our decision herein upon the activity of the Employer for the only period for which data nppear in the record . Stoll Lumber Company, 96 NLRB 682. I 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dations with regard to the status of employees, the record discloses that the general manager, who is in charge of the plant, interviews recommended applicants and makes decisions on the basis of his observations. It appears also that the general manager is sufficiently familiar with the work of the small number of employees to make personnel changes on the basis of such knowledge., Such suggestions as are made by the superintendent and the assistant superintendent are therefore not effective recommendations within the meaning of the Act., The record also indicates that the assignment of work by the superintendent and the assistant superintendent is routine in nature. Their direction of the other employees is of the limited type usually exercised by experienced employees over those less skilled.8 Moreover, a finding that they as well as the general manager and the administrative assistant are supervisors would result in a ratio of four supervisors to five employees, a very high supervisory ratio.9 Ac- cordingly, we find that the superintendent and assistant superintend- ent are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act10 and we shall include them in the unit. We find that all production and maintenance ernpkqees at the Employer's plant in Indianapolis, Indiana, including the superintend- ent and assistant superintendent, but excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, administrative assistant, general manager, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication iii this volume.] -At least 30 percent of the general manager's time is spent In the plant. And In his absence the administrative assistant conveys his instructions or those of the Employer's president to the superinterdent or "the man in charge." Emil Denemark, Inc., 97 NLRB 1107. Potash Corporation of America, 97 NLRB 511 ; Geo. Knight h Co., 93 NLRB 1193. 8 See Potash Corporation of America, supra; and Geo. Knight el Co., supra, in which an Inordinately high supervisory ratio was held to be a factor In determining whether or not supervisory authority exists. 11 Titles as such cannot safely be used as a guide in uetermining supervisory status. +;lvewood's, 92 NLRB 1114. MICHIGAN BAKERIES, INC., and ROBERT D. McPIIEE, PETITIONER and GENERAL TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL No. 406, INTERNATIONAL BROTH- ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, `VAREIIOUSEMEN AND HELPERS , F AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. 7-RD-116. August 15, 195 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing in this case was held before Jerome H. Brooks, hearing officer. The hearing The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 190 NLRB No. 106.