Pervel Corp.

PERVEL CORPORATION 497 mill at Juncos, Puerto Rico, but excluding analysts, the chief mayor- domo, the assistant engineer, chief of the powerplant or chief elec- trician, mayordomp timekeeper, chief of the sugar warehouse, chief of materials and supply warehouse and clerks, the sobrestante, chief of railroad carts maintenance and repair, chief of railroad way maintenance and repair, the railroad timekeeper, train dispatchers, telephone system supervisor, all professional, administrative, and ex- ecutive personnel, office clerical employees, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Pervel Corporation and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC 1979. November 15,1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION On July 30, 1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director of the First Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. , Following the election, the parties were -furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of 20 votes cast,, 10 were for the Petitioner, 8 were against the Peti- tioner, and 2 were challenged by the Petitioner. No objections to the election or to the conduct of the election were filed. As the challenges are sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, an investigation was made pursuant to Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations bythe Regional Director, who on August 21, 1957, issued his report on challenged ballots recom- mending that'the two challenges be overruled. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report and the Employer filed a reply to the exceptions. The Board i has considered the Regional Director's report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, the Employer's reply to the excep- tions, and the entire record in this case and 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. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean. 119 NLRB No. 64. 476321-58-vol. 119-33 49S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 following employees of the Employer, as stipulated by the parties, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All pro- duction and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Norwich, Connecticut, plant, excluding office and plant clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The ballots challenged by the Petitioner were cast by Harry Schauer and Arie Verburg. In his report the Regional Director concluded that Schauer and Verburg are not supervisors as defined in the Act and recommended that their ballots be opened and counted. The Employer is engaged in the machine printing of vinyl plastics which is carried on in two adjoining and connected buildings. The Regional Director finds that the Employer's work force of approxi- mately 20 employees is directly supervised by the Employer's Vice President Pickering with the assistance of one Visick, foreman of press operations, and one Gobeil who is in charge of shipping and banking. Schauer and Verburg, who are on the day shift in separate build- ings, and one Bunning, a night-shift worker whose employee status is undisputed, are members of five-man press crews and are classified as machine printers. Bunning devotes his full time to printing duties and, unlike Schauer and Verburg, does not have an assistant printer in his crew. Both Schauer and Verburg do certain manual work. Thus, in addition to his presswork, Schauer does maintenance and repair work both during and following the regular day shift. Schauer has been employed by the Employer since 1946, and his hourly rate of $2.85 is attributed to his dual skills and experience. Verburg receives $2.07 and Bunning $2.17, while the press assistants of Schauer and Bunning are respectively paid $1.93 and $1.76. Verburg, Bun- ning, and Schauer are paid overtime and, with the exception of Schauer, are required to punch the clock. The Regional Director points out that no evidence was presented to show that either Schauer or Verburg has authority to hire or fire employees or to make effective recommendations as to personnel action. The Regional Director states that certain employees testified that Pickering informed them that Verburg was in charge of the press crew and two other employees and was- to handle their problems and' ref er those he could not solve to Pickering. These employees also told the Regional Director that Verburg asserted he was the f ore- man and that he permitted an employee to leave early and allowed PERVEL CORPORATION 499' employees to send out for food.' However, the Regional Director also points out that the same employees indicated that Verburg does not assign work, that each employee knows his own particular job, and that Verburg goes to the office when a pattern is finished and secures instructions as to ensuing operations. The Petitioner in its exceptions contends that Schauer is not a printer and spends less than 1 hour daily in getting the printing machine started. Schauer, according to the Petitioner, spends the majority of his time directing the performance of the four printers in his crew, ordering the machine stopped in the event anything goes wto ig, determining whether employees who complete a particular job should be required to do another before going home, giving em- ployees permission to take time off, and issuing orders to Bunning before Schauer leaves for the day. Similarly, the Petitioner con- tends that Verburg is not a printer, spends approximately 3 hours a day on the printing machine, and devotes the remainder of his time to checking employees in the same manner as Schauer. We agree with the Regional Director that Schauer and Verburg are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The evidence indicates, as the Regional Director found, that whatever authority they possess as to other employees derives from their working skill and experience.' In our opinion, Schauer and Verburg do not re- sponsibly direct other employees. We note in this connection that the Petitioner does not contend that Bunning, who works on the night shift, is a supervisor even though no acknowledged supervisory official is present to direct his activities. Moreover, the record shows that the Employer's work force of about 20 employees has 3 super- visors whose status is not in question. Two additional supervisors would result in an unusually high ratio of 1 supervisor to every 4 employees.' Accordingly, we find that Schauer and Verburg are employees within the meaning of the Act. We therefore overrule the challenges to their ballots, as recommended by the Regional Director, and shall direct that they be opened and counted. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the First Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this direction, open and count the ballots of Harry Schauer and Arie Verburg, and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.] 2 Pickering explained to the Regional Director that at a meeting of Verburg's crew he directed that questions as to leaving the plant early were to be cleared by Pickering or Visick through Verburg who is in charge of the press. 3 See Southern Bleachery and Print Works, Inc., 115 NLRB 787, 791. Because he con- siders himself bound by the Board's decision in Southern Bleachery, Member Rodgers con- curs in the unit placement herein. 4 See American Finishing Company, 86 NLRB 412, 417.