Brighton Manufacturing Co., Inc.

220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer Sharon Chisholm and Mary H. Hedstrom immediate and full reinstatement to the positions they formerly held, or their equivalent, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and priveleges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. HEAREVER CO., INC., 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. Brighton Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft, and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-3584. November 26, 1958 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 22, 1957, among the employees in the agreed appropriate unit, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region. Upon the conclusion of the election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally of ballots shows that there were approximately 28 eligible voters and that 28 ballots were cast, of which 14 were for the Petitioner, 12 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged.' As the challenged ballots were sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made, and on March 7, 1958, issued his report on challenged ballots and recommendation. The Regional Director found that George Green was a supervisor, and recommended that the challenge to his ballot be sustained and the Petitioner be certified. The Regional Director was unable to determine Whitehead's status and recommended that a hearing be held for that purpose if the Board did not adopt his recom- mendation as to Green. Thereafter the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report, and on April 28, 1958, the Board directed that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by the challenges to the ballots of Green and Whitehead. Thereafter, a hearing was held before Emil C. Parkas, hearing officer. On August 25, 1958, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties his report, in which he found that Green was a supervisor, and that the challenge to his ballot should therefore be sustained. 'The Petitioner challenged George Green and James Whitehead as supervisors. 122 NLRB No. 36. BRIGHTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 221 The hearing officer also found that Whitehead was not a supervisor, and recommended that the challenge to his ballot be overruled and his vote counted. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's findings with respect to Green. As there is no exception to the finding as to Whitehead, it is adopted pro forma. 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 Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fannin,"]. 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 organization involved claims to represent 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) and Section 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 appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Plymouth, Michigan, plant, including plant clerical employees, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the hearing officer's report, the Employer's exceptions to both of these, and the entire record in the case. For the reasons set forth below we find no merit in the Employer's exceptions. At the time of the election, the Employer was operating on two shifts. The day shift ran from 7 to 3:30 p.ni.; the afternoon shift from 3:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. There were about 14 employees on the afternoon shift. Howard, the plant superintendent, and apparently the only conceded supervisor, worked on the day shift but regularly stayed until 5 or 6 p.m. Green reported to work about an hour be- fore the scheduled starting time of the afternoon shift and discussed with Howard what was to be done that night. Howard gave Green a daily list of jobs to be run, including whether they were to be done by male or female employees, and also listing odd jobs that could be done if the others were completed. After. Howard left, Green was in charge of the plant, with instruc- tions to call Howard on matters of major importance. Green did setup work and minor repairs. He made job assignments during a substantial part of his working time. He was responsible for the 222 DECISIOIEfS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees' obedience to working rules, and it is clear that he told them to go back to work when they left their assignments. There has been no instance of disobedience to these requests. Green has also effectively recommended the discharge of two employees.' In all the circumstances of this case, including the fact that Howard would otherwise appear to be the only supervisor for a two-shift operation, we find that Green responsibly directed the work of the night shift employees, and was therefore a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore sustain the challenge to his ballot. As the Petitioner has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees in the agreed unit. [The Board certified International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL- CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees in the agreed- upon unit.] The Employer contends that no weight should be given to this because it occurred under Howard's predecessor, but it does not appear that Green's duties changed signifi- cantly when Howard took over. We therefore reject this contention. Wichita Television Corporation Incorporated, d/b/a HARD-TV and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators of the U.S. & Canada, Motion Picture Projectionists, Local No. 414, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 17-CA-1109 and 17-CA-1153. December 1, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On August 20, 1957, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Respondent also requested oral argu- ment. As the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the request for oral argument is denied. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 122. NLRB No. 37.