Kahn and Feldman, Inc.

JEFFERSON MILLS, DIVISION OF KAHN AND FELDMAN, INC. 385' labor organization , except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WARREN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Jefferson Mills, Division of Kahn and Feldman, Inc.' and Tex- tile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-92358. April 11, 1958 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 Lawrence S. Wescott, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 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 Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer's plant is located at Pula-ski, Virginia, where it is engaged in processing raw nylon yarn. In 1957 the Employer processed raw nylon yarn valued at an amount in excess of $1,000,000 for domestic and foreign customers. During this period, the Employer's services to foreign customers were valued in excess of $50,000. During the same period, the Employer processed yarn intended for foreign export for the Martinsville, Virginia, plant of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, which services were valued at an amount in excess of $100,000. Upon the entire record, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction over the Employer.3 The Employer's motion to dismiss on commerce grounds is accordingly denied. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected by a stipulation of the parties received since the hearing and hereby made a part of the record in the case. G The Employer's challenge to the adequacy of the Petitioner's showing of interest is rejected, for it is well established that the sufficiency of a petitioner's showing of interest is a question for administrative determination, not subject to attack. See Nephi Process-- ing Plant, Inc , 107 NLRB 647. 3 Jonesboro Gratin Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. 120 NLRB No. 67. 483142-59-vol. 120--26 386 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 Petitioner seeks a production and maintenance unit at the Employer's Pulaski, Virginia, plant, which has no history of bargain- ing. The parties are in agreement as to the composition of the unit, except that the Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, would include coning supervisors and the supervisor of oilers, and would exclude production control laboratory employees, cafeteria employees, and shipping and receiving employees. The Petitioner would also exclude the reasearch laboratory employee, as to whom the Employer takes no position. Production control laboratory employees perform routine tests to measure the coating on yarn by chemicals and by boiling extraction. They work under the direction of the laboratory supervisor in a room adjoining the production floor, and spend 1 to 11/2 hours a day on the production floor. None of the four employees in this category has more than a high school education and only a week's training is neces- sary to learn the job. These employees enjoy, the same privileges as the production and maintenance employees. Contrary to the Peti- tioner, we find that they are not technical, confidential, or.profes- sional employees and that the nature of their work allies them with employees in the unit.4 Accordingly, we include them. -The research laboratory employee handles customers' complaints and assists the- laboratory supervisor in making tests on yarn returned by customers as defective. It does not appear that his duties are of a technical nature or that they qualify him as a confidential employee within the meaning of Board decisions.' We shall include him.' The seven cafeteria employees work in the cafeteria, where they prepare and serve food to employees. They are hourly paid and have the same benefits as production and maintenance employees. In ac- cordance with Board policy, we shall include the cafeteria employees in the unit.' There are 4 shipping and receiving employees, 3 of whom receive, store, and inventory raw yarn. These 3 employees spend 35 to 40 per- cent of their time in the plant, and the rest of their time working in the warehouse and driving a truck between the plant and the ware- house, which are 2 blocks apart. The other shipping and receiving employee spends 2 to 3 hours a day driving a truck for the purpose of running errands and making deliveries to customers within a 40- to 4 Goodyear Clearwater Mill #3, 116 NLRB 1768, 1770; The B. F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722; Gates Engineering Company, 115 NLRB 1528, 1532. 5 Goodyear Clearwater Mill ##3, ibid.; The B F. Goodrich Company, supra. 6 Prairie Farms Creamery of Bloomington, 116 NLRB 1237. 7 Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co., 118 NLRB 1027. , JEFFERSON MILLS, DIVISION OF KAHN AND FELDMAN, INC . 387 50-mile radius of the plant. He spends the rest of his time making boxes in the shipping department. We find these employees have in- terests in common with employees in the unit, and we shall include them.' The coning supervisors, of whom there are three, perform inspec- tion duties to insure that the yarn satisfied the requisite standards. If defects in the yarn are found by the coning supervisor to be a result of the fault 'of the operator, he takes away the operator's pay credits for the defective yarn produced. When the operator or machine fixer excepts to the coning supervisor's decision fixing responsibility for a defective lot, the coning supervisor attempts to settle the grievance; if unsuccessful, he submits-the dispute to the area supervisor. When jobs requiring extra care, such as experimental lots,' are received, which appears to happen at least on a weekly basis, it is the coning supervisors' responsibility to see to it that qualified operators handle the job. Nine out of ten recommendations made by him in this con- nection are followed by the Employer. The coning supervisors also assist the supervisor in assigning operators to machines at the begin- ning of a shift, and they are "instrumental" in effecting discharges. The Employer considers the coning supervisors' job as a,training ground for the area- supervisor's position, and the coning supervisors substitute for the area supervisor in the latter's absence. Coning supervisors receive vacation and bonus benefits not available to pro- duction employees. Upon the entire record, we shall exclude the coning supervisors as-supervisors under the Act. The supervisor of oilers maintains and fixes coning machines. He also assigns work to employees in his area and can effectively recom- mend the hiring and discharge of employees. Under all the circum- stances, we find that the supervisor of oilers is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and shall exclude him. 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 of the Employer at its synthetic yarn processing plant at Pulaski, Virginia, including pro- duction control laboratory employees, the, research laboratory em- ployee, cafeteria workers, shipping and receiving employees, and the sizemaker, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, coning supervisors, the supervisor of oilers, crew chief of area A, crew chief in charge of erection, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The parties are in dispute as to the voting eligibility of certain employees. The Employer contends that the employees in question 8 Humble Oil and Refining Company, 115 NLRB 1485, 1492-93. 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have been permanently terminated, and are ineligible to vote, whereas the Petitioner claims that they are in temporary layoff status, and eligible to vote. Early in September 1957 the Employer laid off about 70 employees because of lack of work. ,On October 15 the 55 employees in this group who had not yet been recalled were notified by the Employer that it had changed their status from "lay-off due to lack of work" to "terminated due to lack of work." Between October 15 and No- vember 9, the Employer laid off for business reasons about 80 more employees, each of whom was told that he was being terminated. All 135 employees thus terminated were told that their insurance coverage was being terminated and that they should seek other employment. On November 11 six employees on leave of absence were notified by the Employer that, because of business considerations, their status was being changed from "leave of absence" to "terminated." The Employer suggested to them also that they look for other work. It appears that the 146 employees in issue will be offered work, should additional hiring become necessary, before new employees are hired. However, the testimony at the hearing does not indicate.that these employees have a reasonable expectancy of further employment with the Employer in the near future. Upon the entire record, we find that the 146 employees have been permanently terminated and are ineligible to vote in the election directed herein." [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] • Brown-Forman Distsliers Corporation, 118 NLR]3 454; National Foundry Company of New York, Inc., 112 NLRB 1214 ; United States Rubber Company/, 86 NLRB 338. Retail Associates, Inc., Petitioner and Retail Clerks International Association, Locals Nos. 128 and 633, AFL-CIO. Cabe No. 8-RM 185. April 11,1958 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 Edward A. Grupp, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On March 28, 1958, the Board granted the request of Retail Clerks International Association, Locals Nos. 128 and 633, AFL-CIO, here- inafter referred to as the Union, for oral argument. On April 8, 1958, the Board heard ,oral argument in which Retail Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Association, and the Union participated. 120 NLRB No. 06.