General Electric Co.

GENERAL ELECTRIC APPLIANCES COMPANY 573 General Electric Appliances Company, Department of General Electric Company and District #12, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2215. No- ventber 22,1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION On June 6, 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 for the Fifth Region among the employees in the agreed appropriate unit. Fol- lowing the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that 14 ballots were cast for, and 12 against, the Petitioner, and 4 ballots were challenged. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re- sults of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on September 27, 1957, issued and caused to be served upon the parties a report on challenges. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that the challenges be overruled and the four ballots be opened and counted. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di- rector's report, requesting that the Regional Director's findings of fact and recommendations be overruled, or in the alternative, that a hear- ing be held on the issues raised by its exceptions. The Board 1 has considered the Regional Director's report and the Petitioner's exceptions, and upon the entire record in this case finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees 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) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act : All outside servicemen and shop repairmen of the Employer's Balti- more operation located at 6500 Quad Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland, excluding office clerical, outside salesmen, janitors, parts subsection em- ployees, kitchen planners, cleaning women, warehouse employees, ,.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 [Chairman Leedom and DSeinbers Bean and Jenkins]. 119 NLRB No. 70. 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD building maintenance men, all professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Petitioner challenged the ballots of John J. Asendorf, James W. Crowson, Robert E. Storm, and Carroll I. Cohen on the ground that they are supervisors. On the basis of a full investigation into their status, the Regional Director determined that none of the chal- lenged voters is a supervisor and recommended that the challenges should be overruled. Excluding the 4 challenged voters, the Company employs 26 persons in the stipulated unit, divided between servicemen who repair ap- pliances on the customers' premises and those who work in the shop. There are two admitted supervisors, Moylan, who is in charge of the entire operation, and Allen, the dispatcher of the outside servicemen. Asendorf and Crowson were outside repairmen before March 1957 when they were reclassified as group leaders. As such, they service more factory complaints and more difficult repair jobs than do the other outside servicemen. They still go out on service calls but do so in dress clothes rather than in uniform as previously; they no longer drive trucks ; and they are no longer assigned to the standby roster for night and emergency weekend work. On difficult assignments they may be assisted by other servicemen. They received no increase in their hourly rate of pay when they were reclassified. The same rate is also paid to other outside servicemen not classified as group leaders. Although on one occasion Crowson referred to himself as a fore- man, and on another, Allen, the dispatcher, referred to the two of them as district supervisors, their new duties do not indicate that they supervise other employees, but only that, as individuals, they do the more difficult types of repair work. As Asendorf and Crowson do not direct other employees on any regular basis, nor do they make effective recommendations as to changes in their status, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that they are not supervisors. Though Storm was challenged on supervisory grounds, the Pe- titioner now concedes that he is not a supervisor, but contends he should be excluded because he is not a serviceman. Storm is called a dealer contact man and instructor. He spends practically all his time outside the Baltimore area either repairing appliances for deal- ers or assisting and instructing the dealers' mechanics in the same type of work. For about 3 days a year, Storm attends a service school conducted by the Employer where new models of appliances are in- troduced, and then conducts a similar class for the servicemen at the Baltimore operation. He is paid the same hourly rate as Asendorf and Crowson. In addition he is compensated for his expenses when working out of town. There is no evidence to indicate that Storm has any supervisory authority. As he works entirely in the appliance FERNWOOD MFG. CO. 575 service field, either in actual repair, or in assisting and instructing appliance servicemen, we believe that he is appropriately included in a unit of servicemen, even though he does not work in the metro- politan Baltimore area. We therefore adopt the recommendation of the Regional Director that Storm's ballot be opened and counted. The Petitioner contends that Cohen is the shop foreman in charge of the television and appliance repair shop, with authority to assign work and to make effective recommendations for discharging shop employees. There are four repairmen in the shop, including Cohen. He is the senior man in point of service and experience. He helps the other men on difficult repair problems, and does most of the paper- work such as making up work tickets and keeping inventory records. His rate of pay is the same as that of the other three challenged voters, and it is more than that of any other shop repairman. He shows the men how to do their work properly, and instructs newly hired shop- men. Moylan informed Cohen about 6 months before the election that he was to be the shop leader, and Cohen stated during the course of the Regional Director's investigation that he felt that he was re- sponsible for seeing to it that the work in the shop got done. Al- though he has no authority to take disciplinary action against employees, we are nevertheless satisfied that he is a supervisor because he assigns work to the shop repairmen, and is responsible for their doing the work properly. We therefore overrule the Regional Di- rector's recommendation as to Cohen, and sustain the challenge to his ballot. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Fifth Re- gion shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of John J. Asendorf, James W. Crowson, and Robert E. Storm and serve upon the parties a revised tally of ballots.] Max Leventhal d/b/a Fernwood Mfg. Co.' and Furniture Work- ers, Upholsterers and Wood Workers Union, Local 123, Peti- tioner. Case No. 21-RC-4842. November 22, 1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upc. a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relation is Act, a hearing was held before Belle Karlinsky, hearing ' During the hearing, the parties stipulated that the name of the Employer was "Max Leventhal doing business as Fernwood Manufacturing Company." It appears, however, from the entire record, that the name used by the Employer is abbreviated as it appears in the caption. 119 NLRB No. 77.