Easthampton Rubber Thread Co.

114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Easthampton Rubber Thread Company 1 and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-I?C-4130. September P0, 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 Joseph C. Barry, 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 record shows that the Employer's direct outflow is in, excess of $50,000 annually. As this amount meets the Board's standards for the assertion of jurisdiction, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.2 2. The Petitioner desires to represent the employees involved herein and bargain on their behalf with respect to wages, hours, and condi- tions of employment. We therefore find it is a labor organization as defined in the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties are in agreement as to the composition of the unit except that the Petitioner would exclude as supervisors eight assist- ant foremen, all of whom the Employer would include as employees. Patrick McCarthy and Henry Desmarais spend half their time working on the day shift in the vulcanizing department when the foreman is present and also alternate with each other for 2-week pe- riods in taking sole charge of and directing the department's 14 night shift employees for whose work they are responsible. McCarthy and Desmarais give these employees instructions, make assignments, and have the authority to send employees home in cases involving serious infractions of the rules. Clement Dionne and Philip Parsons, who devote half their time to the cutting department's day shift under the supervision of the fore- man, alternate with each other for 1-week periods in taking sole charge of the department's 13 night shift employees over whom they exercise authority similar to that possessed by McCarthy and Desmarais. 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Jonesboro Gram Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, 482, 483. 114 NLRB No. 32. EASTHAMPTON RUBBER THREAD COMPANY 115 Michael Dzialo spends about half his time as a regular employee on the night shift of the millroom under the direction of Harold Kulon, an admitted supervisor. For the remainder of his time he is in sole charge of the washing and receiving department which oper- ates 2 or 3 nights a week. Although Dzialo spends part of his time working along with the 6 employees in the washing and receiving de- partment, the record also shows that in his capacity as the director of the department's night shift, he possesses, the same authority, as the other 4 assistant foremen on the night shift, described above. Arthur Pelchat directs and is in sole charge of the maintenance de- partment's 12 or 13 day shift employees in the absence of the fore- man, who is away from the plant about 25 percent of the time. Pel- chat makes assignments and has the power to suspend employees for insubordination. Earl Lizotte works on the day shift of the millroom where he di- rects the 16 employees engaged in calendar production. In addition to being responsible for the work of these employees, he directs the re- maining 15 employees in the department when the foreman is ill or on vacation. Mitchell Kowalske works full time on the day shift of the eight- man washing and receiving department which is under the super- vision of a foreman. In the course of Kowalske's unloading duties, he is assisted by one or more of the department's employees to whom he issues routine instructions. Kowalske substitutes for the foreman only during the latter's vacation or illness. In view of the foregoing, we find that all of the assistant foremen with the exception of Kowalske are supervisors who responsibly di- rect and control, for substantial and regular periods of time, the ac- tivities of the employees in their respective departments.3 With respect to Kowalske, it is clear that his duties are essentially nonsupervisory. Accordingly, we shall exclude all of the preceding assistant foremen but Kowalske from the unit. We find that the following employees constitute a,unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Easthampton, Massachusetts, plant, including the as- sistant foreman in the day shaft of the receiving and washing depart- ment, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the At. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3Scharco Manufacturing Company, Inc, 312 NLRB 1 519, Enterprise Tool and Gear Corporation, 112 NLRB 1355 387644-56-vol. 114-=9