United States Rubber Co.

746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company, 8 NLRB 440. Back pay shall be computed in accordance with the Board's usual policies. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Upon the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bowen Products Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, Local 611, and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles L. Seals, thereby encouraging membership in Respondent Unions, Respondent Com- pany has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. By attempting to cause and causing Respondent Company to discriminate against Charles L. Seals in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, Respondent Unions have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 6. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Unions have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] United States Rubber Company and Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3074. August 16, 1955 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 Edwin R. Hancock, 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 all of the Employer's production and maintenance, employees at its Shelbyville, Tennessee, plant, with the usual exclusions. The Employer and the Petitioner agree, basi- 113 NLRB No. 80. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 747 tally, that, the -unit sought is alipropriate' for purposes of collective bargaining, but either disagree on, or leave to the judgment of the' Board, the unit placement-"of certain classifications of employees. The classifications in question, and our rulings thereon, are-as follows Cloth grader and chief inspector: The Employer and the Petitioner' agree that this employee should be ihcluded in the unit. The Em= plover, however, requests a Board ruling on the matter. The duties of -the cloth grader and chief inspector are to load full rolls of fabric on, inspection -tables, to unload them, ,and to relay to the inspectors certain instructions as to the-manner in which defective fabric should be marked.' These instructions, which vary with the specifications for the particular fabric involved, are given to the cloth grader and chief' inspector by his superiors, are routine in nature, and do not require' the use of independent judgment upon the part of the cloth grader and chief -inspector. He is paid an hourly rate, and receives from , 5 to 10 percent more than inspectors, who are paid on a piece-work basis. He cannot hire, discharge, direct, or assign employees, nor ef- fectively recommend such -action. In-such circumstances, we find the' cloth grader and chief inspector does not possess supervisory author- ity. As the record shows that the interests of the cloth grader and chief inspector are similar to those of employees in the unit, we shall,. in'accord with the agreement of the parties, include him in the unit. ' Village crew leader: The-Employer would include the village crew leader; the Petitioner would exclude him. The village crew performs maintenance duties on an employer-owned housing development in which some of the Employer's employees live. The master mechanic of-the Employer's plant is in overall supervision of the village crew. However, the village crew leader is the only contact between the master mechanic and the crew, because the crew reports for work di= reetly in the village rather than at the plant. The village crew leader inspects the work of-the crew, uses -independent judgment in assigning and directing their duties, has authority to grant days off, and is paid 25 percent to 35 percent more than the crew members. In these cir- cumstances; we find that'the village crew leader possesses supervisory authority, and shall exclude him. - Laboratory testers: The Employer would include the laboratory testers. The Petitioner would leave their unit placement to the Board. The duties of the laboratory testers are to gather samples of fabric and cotton yarn and perform routine tests for quality upon the sam- ples.- No independent judgment is involved in the tests and there are, no special educational or training requirements for'the job. The laboratory testers spend about 40 percent of their time in the produc- ' tionm-area ,picking, up samples to ,be,,,tested. , -In these circumstances, we find that the interests of the laboratory testers are closely allied 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with those of the production and maintenance employees and, ac- cordingly, we shall include them in the unit.' Testing and clerical employee: The Employer would include and the Petitioner would exclude this employee. The testing and clerical employee's duties are the same as those of the laboratory testers, ex- cept that he spends about 50 percent of his time in the laboratory typing the various testing records. Even should we treat this employee as a clerical employee, it is clear that he would fall within the classi-`-' fication of a plant clerical and, thus, properly included within the unit. Accordingly, we shall include him herein.' Recreation building attendant: The Employer would include this employee, while the Petitioner would exclude him. The duties of the recreation building attendant are to clean and maintain the recreation building, ball park, and the gymnasium. These facilities, which are used by the production.and maintenance employees, are located about one-fourth mile from the production area. The recreation building attendant performs no work inside the plant and is under the immedi- ate supervision of the supervisor of recreation and the overall super- vision of the industrial relations manager. This classificationds never interchanged with any of the production and maintenance employees. The recreation building attendant is hourly paid and receives the same fringe benefits as the other employees. In all of these circumstances, we find that his duties and interests are sufficiently related to those of the production and maintenance employees to warrant his inclusion. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit.s - Supply clerks, timekeepers, and receiving clerks: The Employer and the Petitioner leave the unit placement of the supply clerks to the Board's discretion. Their duties are to receive, store, dispense, and keep records of supplies. Their duties are performed in the supply house which is located about 30 feet- from, but within the same en- closure as, the production and maintenance area. The Employer would include, and the Petitioner would exclude, timekeepers. The 2 timekeepers involved work, 1 each, in the spinning and twisting, departments. They spend their entire time, at timekeep- ing duties, within their respective departments located in the produc- tion area. The Employer would include the receiving clerks as plant clericals. The Petitioner would leave their placement to the Board. The receiv- ing clerks work in the warehouse under the supervision of the shipping superintendent, and are responsible for receiving and keeping records of raw materials shipped to the Employer. , i Sebastopol -Cooperative Cannery, 111 NLRB 530. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, 112 NLRB 571. $ Cf. Safe Harbor Water Power Corploration, 109 NLRB 1365, 1369. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 749 On the foregoing facts, it is clear, and we find, that the supply clerks, timekeepers, and the receiving clerks are plant clericals, and we shall, accordingly, include them in the unit. Construction laborers-temporary: The Employer and the Peti- tioner agreed to leave the inclusion of the construction laborers'to the discretion of the Board. These employees were hired about 15 months ago to help on the construction of a new plant and were told when hired that they were being employed only for as long as they were needed. At the time of the hearing they were working on the con- struction of a ball park and other minor projects and it then appeared that their work would be completed within the week and that they would thereupon be discharged. The Employer has no plans to make the construction laborers regular employees or to rehire them in the event that further construction is undertaken at a future date. These construction laborers do not participate in the regular fringe bene- fits with the other employees. In view of the different nature of their duties and the impending termination of their employment, we shall exclude them from the unit. "Cooperative" employees or trainees: The Employer would include and the Petitioner would exclude the so-called "cooperative" employ- ees or trainees. These employees work in the various employee classi- fications throughout the plant for about 6 months, for the purpose of training for supervisory positions. While so working they actually perform the various production or maintenance functions of the clas- sification in which they are training. At the time of the hearing the Employer planned to hire two such employees on June 10, 1955. They will be carried on the production and maintenance payroll; will be supervised by the supervisor of the particular department in which they are training; and will participate in the same fringe benefits as the regular production and maintenance employees. The trainees' rate of pay will be similar, but somewhat lower than the other em- ployees. We find that the interests and working conditions of the trainees are sufficiently related to those of the production and main- tenance employees to include them in the unit." Accordingly, we shalt. so include them. Janitor-plant messenger: The Employer would include the janitor- messenger, while the Petitioner would exclude him. About 70 percent of this employee's time is spent performing janitor duties in the main office. The remainder of his time is spent in picking up mail and gath- ering production records from the various departments in the plant. The janitor-messenger is listed on the production and maintenance payroll and participates in the same fringe benefits as the production and maintenance employees. We find that his interests are similar to • Mrs. Tucker's Products, 106 NLRB 533, pp. 534-535. 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD those- of the production and maintenance employees and shall include him in the unit.' Upon the entire record in -this,case, we find that the following unit is • appropriate • for the .purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : - - 11 All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's She1- byville, Tennessee; plant, including the cloth grader and chief inspecr , tor, laboratory testers, the testing and clerical employee, supply clerks, timekeepers, receiving clerks, trainees, the recreation building attendant, and the janitor-plant'=messenger, but 'excluding' the dffice clerical employees, professional employees, village crew leader, con- struction laborers-temporary, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. - [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part -in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. s Grand River Chemical Dtivistion of Deere & Company, 111 NLRB 770. International Harvester Company (Broadview Parts Depot) and UAW-AFL, Amalgamated Local No. 286 and International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 399, Affiliated with The American Federation of Labor, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 13-RC-4357 and 13-RC-4381. August 16, 1955 - - DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9.'(c) of the- Na= tional. Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Jewel G. Maher, 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 these cases, the Board finds : 1., The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2:. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. _ The Grain Millers, at the hearing, moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that its current contract covering the employees in= volved bars an election at this time. This contract is effective from September 25, 1952, to August 23, 1955, and thereafter from year to 2The following , labor organizations , were -permitted to intervene at the-hearing: Local 179, -American Federation of Grain Millers,=AFL, herein called - the'Grain Millers, -and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO. - • ' 113 NLRB No. 79.