Phalo Plastics Corp.

PHALO PLASTICS CORPORATION 503 Phalo Plastics Corporation and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-5396. March 31, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER Upon investigation of challenges to ballots sufficient in number to affect the results of the election held herein , the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found, con- trary to the Petitioner 's contention, that four of the challenged voters were not supervisors , and recommended that the challenges to their ballots be overruled and the ballots be opened and counted. As he was unable to determine the status of the remaining five challenges, he recommended that, if necessary, a hearing be directed to resolve issues with respect thereto . The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director 's report. The Board 1 has considered the report and the exceptions, and hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director, with the modifications and additions below. The Petitioner, in its exceptions, submitted evidence that Bondi, Grant, Watt, and Gaudette , whom the Regional Director, as above indicated , found to be within the unit, regularly attended weekly meetings of supervisors, and that therefore a hearing was necessary to resolve the issue as to their supervisory status. However, such evidence, in our opinion, would be insufficient to warrant reversal of the Regional Director's findings as to these challenges. As the Petitioner did not otherwise advance any independent evidence to contradict his findings, we conclude that a hearing on such issue would serve no useful purpose. Cf. The Hertner Electric Company, 116 NLRB 979, 981. As to . Floorladies Glatki and Legare, the Regional Director found the evidence insufficient to determine whether or not they were supervisors and therefore recommended that, if necessary , the issue be resolved by a hearing. Floorladies, however, were excluded from the unit by stipulation of the parties . The Board has a well-estab- lished policy of honoring concessions made in the interest of ex- peditious handling of representation cases in general . If, after an election, the Board were to permit parties to a representation proceeding to repudiate their evidence on unit questions and give them an opportunity to substitute other evidence , which was reason- ably available at the time of the original hearing, there would be no finality to such proceedings. As the only evidence presented on 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. 123 NLRB No. 61. 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this issue was available at the time of the original hearing, and as the stipulation does not contravene any Board policy or statutory proscription, the Board finds that the parties, for the purposes of the election, are bound by their stipulation. Therefore, without passing upon the question of whether or not they in fact are not supervisors, we sustain the challenges to the ballots of Glatki and Legare. Cf. Stanley Aviation Corporation, 114 NLRB 178; Consolidated Retail Stores, Inc., d/b/a Bon Marche, 118 NLRB 1621,1624. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the First Region shall, within 10 clays from the date of this decision, open and count the ballots of employees John L. Bondi, Elmer L. Grant, Arthur C. Watt, and Clement A. Gaudette, the challenges to which have been overruled herein, and serve upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots.] [The Board ordered that in the event the revised tally of ballots indicates that the results of the election are not determinative, the case be referred to the Regional Director for the First Region for the purpose of arranging a hearing before a hearing officer to resolve the issues raised by the challenges to the ballots of George H. Le- Page, Ralph W. Darling, and Arthur D. Cunningham.] REPORT ON CHALLENGED BALLOTS Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated November 21, 1958, the Regional Director, on December 19, 1958, conducted an election among cer- tain employees of the Employer. The tally of ballots cast at said election is as follows: Approximate number of eligible voters ------_ 364 ---------------------- Void ballots ---------------------------------------------------- 1 Votes cast for Petitioner ----------------------------------------- 165 Votes cast against participating labor organization -------------------- 160 Valid votes counted --------------------------------------------- 325 Challenged ballots ---------------------------=------------------ 9 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots -------------------------- 334 The challenges being determinative of the results of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, Series 7, has caused an investigation to be made and makes this his report thereon.' Petitioner challenged the ballots of John L. Bondi, Elmer L. Grant, Arthur C. Watt, Clement A. Gaudette, George H. LePage, Ralph W. Darling, Arthur D. Cunningham, Joan Glatki, and Blanche A. Legare on the grounds that they are supervisors as defined in the Act.2 Investigation reveals: 3 John L. Bondi and Elmer L. Grant are classified as setup men while Arthur C. Watt is classified as an expediter. All work on the first shift in the cord set i No objections were filed to conduct affecting results of the election. The names of only Joan Glatki and Blanche Legare appeared on the eligibility list furnished by Employer. The Employer states that the names of the remaining seven were omitted since Employer was un'familiar with criteria which determine supervisors as de- fined in the Act and therefore was undecided as to their status. 3 Petitioner contends that all or nearly all of the challengees attend a supervisors' meeting which is held regularly every Friday afternoon. Credible testimony from the Employer is that no such meetings occur at this time. The Employer does state that PHALO PLASTICS CORPORATION 505 department under Leroy Laig and Arthur Fortin. All are hourly rated and receive $1.85 hourly. They punch the timeclock, are paid for evertime and docked for absence, and receive the same benefits as do other production employees. Gen- erally, the duties of Bondi, Grant, and Watt are similar in that all are expected to facilitate production processes in that section of the department wherein they work. Bondi sets up machinery and equipment in the cutting operation of the depart- ment which has four machines for which he is, responsible. He also changes reels of wire and moves racks of wire to another department and repairs ma- chinery if the breakdown is of a minor nature. Grant sets up and services 13 small molding machines and changes and re- builds dies that are necessary to the machines. He also gives job cards to em- ployees which have previously been prepared by Laig and given to Grant by Fortin. Watt services a section of about 14 employees who operate molding machines. He is responsible for material movement to and from these machines and for machine control settings and makes sure that the quality of the product is con- sistent with standards. He also receives job cards with the type of work and machine already assigned and in turn gives these cards to the operators. No evidence is presented or adduced to indicate that the jobs of Bondi, Grant, or Watt embrace any of the characteristics of a supervisor as defined in the Act. While, in the case of Grant and Watt, they do pass job cards to the employees, these assignments are predetermined and neither Grant nor Watt contributes or participates in this predetermination. Therefore, the Regional Director concludes that Bondi, Grant, and Watt are not supervisors as defined in the Act and recommends that the challenges to their ballots be overruled. Clement A. Gaudette is classified as head electrician. He is hourly paid, punches the timeclock, is paid for overtime and docked for absence, and receives the same benefits as do other production employees. Gaudette reports to Plant Superintendent McQuiston as does also Roger Gaudette, another electrician who works on his own and with and assisting Clement Gaudette. Their work has to do with the installation, repair, and maintenance of the electrical equipment in the plant and they are the only ones so employed. Clement Gaudette receives an hourly rate of pay about 25 percent above that of Roger Gaudette but he has no authority to discipline Roger Gaudette nor, in their relationship, are any of the characteristics present upon which to conclude that Clement Gaudette is a supervisor as defined in the Act. Rather, it appears to the Regional Director that more appropriately the relationship can be con- sidered as journeyman-helper or senior and junior. It is the conclusion of the Regional Director that Clement Gaudette is not a supervisor as defined in the Act and it is recommended that the challenge to his ballot be overruled. George H. LePage, Ralph W. Darling, and Arthur Cunningham are employed as "foremen" or "group leaders" in the extrusion department on the first, second, and third shifts, respectively. The department complement of personnel is 9-10 on each shift including 7 machine operators whose hourly rate is $1.85. A de- partmental superintendent, St. Jean, is in charge of all shifts of the extrusion department along with the spooling and shipping groups to the number of 12 who work only on the first shift. St. Jean also functions as a tooling engineer, maintaining and designing new extrusion equipment. LePage, Darling, and Cunningham are hourly paid, punch a timeclock, and are docked for absence and paid for overtime. They receive the same benefits as other eligible employees. Their hourly rate is $2.25 per hour. All are senior employees and at one time were extruder operators but, according to St. Jean, "as we grew, we decided we needed group leaders to oversee production methods and to see that these boys we hired without experience became qualified operators." According also to St. Jean, production orders come from the main office to his office and there the jobs are separated to each extrusion machine. There is a shop assignment board for each machine and St. Jean, with an office man, sets up a 30- to 36-hour advance schedule for each machine, the group leaders passing management meetings of supervision are held regularly on Tuesdays but that none of 'the challengees have ever attended such meetings. Some of the challengees, however, do attend monthly safety meetings , the sole topic of the discussion thereat being plant safety measures. 506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on the jobs as scheduled to the operators or the operators may take the job cards themselves. According to Plant Superintendent McQuiston, St. Jean, and the group leaders themselves, they hand out these work assignments as prearranged, make sure there are the necessary tools to run the job, check raw materials for quantity and according to card specification, assist in setting up, pick out dies, check the ma- chines, and cause operators to correct any defect, etc. It is said that no authority rests with the group leaders, that theirs is a routine activity with all authority existing primarily and entirely with St. Jean. St. Jean has an office in sight of the extrusion department but there is a ques- tion as to how much time he spends in the office and with other duties and how much time he spends on the extrusion floor. He leaves the plant between 5 and 6 p.m. daily. While there is a second shift superintendent, LeBaire, he has no authority over extrusion. On the third shift, the extrusion, braiding, shielding, and lacquering departments operate, the latter three under a group leader, Sheeran. Thus, at least from 5 to 6 p.m. through the third shift which ends at 7 a.m., Darling and Cunningham are in departmental charge in loco. Darling says that after St. Jean leaves, he has charge of the smooth operation of the department until 11 p.m. when Cunningham takes over. McQuiston says that there is no third- shift supervision apart from Sheeran and Cunningham who are responsible to some extent for reporting irregularities both in personnel and equipment. According to Petition's affiants, LePage, Darling, and Cunningham perform little or no manual work, assign jobs, act as clearing agents for all departmental problems, consider themselves as "bosses," and are so considered by plant per- sonnel. Joan Glatki and Blanche Legare are known as floorladies 4 or floorgirls by those with whom they work. Both work the 2:30-11 p.m. shift, Glatki in assembly department and Legare in cord set, the departments having some 60 and 40 girls, respectively. The second shift is supervised by the night superintendent, LeBaire, who also supervises the braiding and shielding operation. First-shift cord set operations of about 60 employees are, as previously stated, in charge of Laig, assisted by Fortin. First-shift assembly operations are in charge of Regis Breault, assisted by Robert McClure and Richard Meyers. There is thus on the first shift an intervening authority between superintendency and floorladies, which condition is not present for all or a large portion of the second shift, and all of the third shift. Both Glatki and Legare are hourly paid, punch a timeclock, are paid for over- time and docked for absence, and receive the same benefits as do the production employees. Glatki receives $1.40 and Legare $1.35 hourly. Both assembly and cord set departments are on incentive and the earnings of the employees therein in substantial percentage equal or exceed these hourly rates. The work of the floorladies is described by McQuiston as routine and includes the physical transportation of production units from one operation to another; interpretation of specifications as related to correct performance of individual bench operations; some inspection responsibility; some set-up of jigs and fixtures; and check of production records for reasonable accuracy. They hand out job cards although on the basis of the predetermined schedules. The Employer states that no authority for personnel action or responsible assignment rests with either Glatki or Legare. Petitioner's affiants aver that Glatki and Legare give out the work and instruct employees in the performance of the work; shift employees from one job to another; canvass girls as to their unemployment compensation status as a basis for layoff, approve timecards for downtime, etc. In the opinion of the Regional Director, sufficient doubt exists as to the actual status of LePage, Darling, Cunningham, Glatki, and Legare to warrant develop- ment of a full record as a basis for determination by the Board as to whether they are or are not supervisors as defined in the Act, if count of their ballots is necessary to the conclusiveness of the election. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 4 Floorladies were excluded from the unit by stipulation of the parties on grounds that they were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. However, Glatki, Legare, and the two first-shift floorladies were included on the eligibility list. The latter (Severy and Pusa) voted without challenge.