United States Gypsum Co.

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 185 United States Gypsum Company and Local 522, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-7287. September 29,1955 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 George V. Byrnes, 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 organizations involved claim 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 production and maintenance employees at the Employer's New Brighton, Staten Island, New York, plant. The parties agree that a production and maintenance unit is appropriate, but the Employer contends, contrary to the Petitioner and Intervenor, that the following employees are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and should therefore be excluded from the unit : Mill leadermen, large batch leadermen, dry paint, Sabinite and Oriental leaderman, Perf -A-Tape leaderman, shipping leadermen and raw materials leaderman in the packing and paint department, ship- ping leaderman in the paste paint department, block leadermen, take- off leadermen, and board machine men z The plant is divided into 8 departments, of which 4 are operating departments. The operating departments are subdivided into sections i United Union Workers of United States Gypsum Company , Independent, intervened at the hearing on the basis of a contractual interest . After the hearing, United Paperworkers of America , CIO, filed a motion in which it alleges that the Independent has affiliated with and become a local of United Paperworkers and moves that it be permitted to inter- vene and that its name be substituted for that of the Independent on the ballot. There- after, the Employer, but not the Independent or the Petitioner , filed its objections to the motion in which it contends that the motion amounts to a request by a new labor organiza- tion to intervene on the basis of interest accruing after the hearing and that it should therefore be denied . The Employer does not , however , contest the allegations of United Paperworkers that the Independent has affiliated with United Paperworkers Accordingly, as United Paperworkers has made a colorable claim of successorship to the Independent, we will grant its motion to intervene and will permit it to appear on the ballot. See Bull Insular Lines, et at., 107 NLRB 674, at 676 . As the Independent has not objected and apparently no longer is in existence , we will also grant the motion to have its name removed from the ballot. 2 The Employer also contends that inspectors should be excluded from the unit but offered no evidence as to their duties and responsibilities . In accord with our usual practice , we will include the inspectors in the unit . See United States Gypsum Company, 85 NLRB 9. 114 NLRB No. 46. 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD according to function. The leadermen and board machine men are each in charge of such a section.3 Above them are foremen who in most cases are responsible for more than one section. At the head of each department, except the block department, is a superintendent.4 In several cases during second and third shifts, the leadermen are the highest ranking personnel present in their departments. The leadermen and board machine men are in charge of groups of employees varying in size from 4 to approximately 18 men. They are responsible for all operations of their group as well as for their safety and for the housekeeping of their assigned areas. Although each engages in manual work to varying degrees, they keep constant check on the work of the employees under them and give them direc- tions and instructions as necessary. In a previous proceeding involving the New Brighton plants,' the Board concluded that the board machine men and leadermen were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, finding among other things that, on the record then before it, none of these employees possessed the power to make effective recommendations as to changes in status of other employees and that when recommendations were made, a sepa- rate investigation was conducted before final action was taken. Since the hearing in the prior case, there has been an increase in the volume of production at the New Brighton plant and the variety of products produced or handled in the sections headed by the leadermen. In addition, since then there has been a decrease in the number of salaried supervisors above several of the leadermen. -At the hearing in the instant case, the Employer's witnesses' credi- bly testified that all disputed leadermen and board machine men were authorized to make effective recommendations as to transfer, promo- tion, demotion, discipline, and discharge. Employees in the disputed categories' testified credibly that they either were specifically told or understood that they were authorized to recommend promotions. In addition, the record shows that in each case the leadermen and board machine men have made recommendations for promotion of employees under them and most of them have also recommended transfer, dis- cipline, and discharge of employees in their crews. These recommen- dations have all been generally followed. The record also establishes that, at least in the case of recommendations for promotion, no inde- pendent investigations are made. There is specific evidence to this effect as to the takeoff leadermen and the shipping leaderman in the 3 Every such section does not have a leaderman in charge . Some are supervised directly by foremen * The Employer's table of organization calls for a block department superintendent but that position has been vacant for some time and the foreman is currently acting as superintendent. 5 United States Gypsum Company, 92 NLRB 18. 6 The works manager and departmental superintendents. 7 Five employees in four of the disputed categories testified at the hearing. MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 187- packing and paint department, and there is no evidence that inde- pendent investigations are made of such recommendations in any case., Accordingly, we find that the leadermen and board machine men have and exercise authority effectively to recommend promotions of em- ployees under them and are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.' We shall therefore exclude them from the unit. We, find that the following employees of the Employer at its New Brighton, Staten Island, New York, plant constitute a unit appropri- ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees including inspectors, but excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees, testers, watchmen, guards, executives, foreman, mill leadermen, large batch leadermen, dry paint, Sabinite and Oriental leaderman, Perf-A- Tape leaderman, shipping leaderman and raw materials leaderman in the packing and paint department, shipping leadermen in the paste paint department, block leadermen, takeoff leadermen, board machine men, and other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of-Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 There is evidence that in two instances , one involving a recommendation for suspen- sion by a takeoff leaderman and the other -a recommendation for discharge by a board machine man , that independent investigations were made before action was taken. Also there was testimony that separate investigations are made of recommendations for dis- charge by the shipping leaderman in the packing and paint department . However, there is no evidence of independent investigation of any other recommendations for changes in status. 9 United States Gypsum Company, 112 NLRB 1217. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC- 92728. October 3, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Henry L. Jalette, 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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.' 1 The Independent Union of Chemical Plant Workers intervened on the basis of a contractual interest. 114 NLRB No. 48.