Stainless Welded Products, Inc.

2 04 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing and the record as a whole it is apparent that the plastic-mold operator does not possess the skills usually associated with a craft employee. Nor does he have such a community of interest with molders and coremakers as to warrant his inclusion in the molders unit. On the contrary his interests are more closely allied with those of the production and maintenance employees. Therefore we find that the plastic- mold operator is appropriately included in the production and maintenance unit represented by the United Steelworkers of America, CIO.5 5 Although the Steelworkers did not appear at the reopened hearing, it did intervene in the original hearing in this case . Furthermore the Employer testified that it had signed a contract with the Steelworkers on October 31, 1952, covering plastic -mold operators, thus it is apparent that the Steelworkers is willing to represent this classification as part of its unit. STAINLESS WELDED PRODUCTS, INC. and LOCAL 274, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPREN- TICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-5019. April 17, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board in the above-entitled proceeding on November 3, 1952, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 24, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found to be appropriate. At the close of the election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that 67 ballots were cast, of which 27 were for the Petitioner, 24 were against the Petitioner, and 16 were challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed by either of the parties. 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 February 26, 1953, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenges. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that challenges to the ballots of Genino (Jerry) Agresti, Robert Masalski, Aroy Williams, Albert Johnson, Frank Greb, Ennio Dellavia, and Louis Ricco be sustained, and that the challenges to the ballots of Frank Cavalier, Frank Morgan, Louis Zawada, Bernard Bentsen, Xavier Boguslawski, John Impomeni, John Kelly, Valgene Lloyd, and Elwood Rennie be overruled and that these ballots be opened and counted. The Petitioner duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations with respect to the ballots cast by the individ- uals considered below.' 1 As no exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director 's recommendations with respect to the ballots cast by Aroy Williams, Albert Johnson, Frank Greb, Ennio Dellavia, and Louis Ricco, we shall adopt these recommendations and sustain the challenges. 104 NLRB No. 18. STAINLESS WELDED PRODUCTS, INC. 205 Genino ( Jerry ) Agresti : The Employer challenged Agresti's ballot on the ground that he had been discharged for cause before the election . The Regional Director recommended that the challenge be sustained . The Petitioner contends that Agresti was discharged for his union activities and that therefore he was eligible to vote. However, as no unfair labor practice charge has been filed , we agree with the Regional Director that, for the purpose of this proceeding , Agresti was presumptively discharged for cause . Accordingly, we shall sustain the chal- lenge to Agresti ' s ballot. Frank Cavalier , Frank Morgan, Louis Zawada, Bernard Bentsen : The Petitioner challenged the ballots of these em- ployees on the ground that they were supervisors . Cavalier, Morgan, and Zawada are classified on the Employer ' s records as foremen. In its Decision and Direction of Election , the Board found, in accordance with the agreement of the parties and the uncontradicted testimony , that foremen were nonsupervisory employees to be included in the unit . Bentsenhas been employed since the end of September 1952 as a group leader or as a fore- man. The Regional Director ' s investigation discloses that Bentsen has substantially the same duties and responsibilities as Zawada, with whom he alternates shifts in the brake depart- ment every week. As there is nothing in the Petitioner ' s exceptions establishing that the foregoing employees were in fact supervisors , we find that they are eligible to vote and shall overrule the challenges to their ballots. Xavier Boguslawski , John Impomeni, John Kelly, Valgene Lloyd : The Petitioner contends that these employees were transferred from Stainless Products , Inc., another company, for the purpose of influencing the election . The Regional Direc- tor's report discloses that these employees have been in the Employer's employ since before the election and continuously thereafter past the date of the election . No charges have been filed alleging that any of these employees were transferred in violation of the Act. In view of the foregoing , we shall overrule the challenges to the ballots of these employees. Robert Masalski : The Board agent challenged Masalski's ballot because his name did not appear on the eligibility list. The Regional Director ' s report reveals that Masalski has been continuously employed by Stainless Products , Inc., and not by the Employer herein, since October 6 , 1952, before the eligibility date. Accordingly , we shall , in agreement with the Regional Director , sustain the challenge to Masalski ' s ballot. Elwood Rennie: The Petitioner challenged the ballot of this employee on the ground that he is a supervisor. It appears from the Regional Director's report that Rennie is classified as a shop inspector whose duties include the inspection and testing of welded pipe. He is hourly rated , punches a time clock, and spends most of his working time in the Employer's yard in close proximity to material handlers who are included in the unit . In the course of his work Rennie may give routine instructions to other employees with respect to the unloading of trucks or the packing of cases. In view of the foregoing, 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD we find that Rennie is not a supervisor as defined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenge to his ballot. DIRECTION IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that, as a part of the investi- gation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining with Stainless Welded Products, Inc., Jersey City, New Jersey, the Regional Director for the Second Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of Frank Cavalier, Frank Morgan, Louis Zawada, Bernard Bentsen, Xavier Boguslawski, John Impomeni, John Kelly, Valgene Lloyd, and Elwood Rennie, and shall thereafter prepare and, cause to be served upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, in- cluding therein the count of the said challenged ballots. HAFFENREFFER & CO., INC. and FRED LESTER LOCAL NO. 14, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREW- ERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and FRED LESTER. Cases Nos. 1-CA-1208 and 1-CB-192. April 20, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On December 31, 1952, Trial Examiner William F. Scharni- kow issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm- ative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Re- port attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondents filed excep- tions to the Intermediate, Report and supporting briefs. Respondent Employer's and Respondent Union's requests for oral argument are hereby denied. The record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and posi- tions of the parties. The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modi- fied below.: 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 Styles]. I We find that, since no union-security agreement was in effect at the time when the Re- spondent Union requested Lester's discharge and when Respondent Employer discharged him, the Respondent Employer committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 104 NLRB No. 24.