Southern Steel & Stove Co., Inc.

SOUTHERN STEEL & STOVE COMPANY, INC. 577 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging Frank Hopkins in June 1958. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Southern Steel & Stove Company, Inc ., Hunter Window Corpo- ration, Southern Tool and Die Co., Inc., and Southern Ma- chinery Corporation and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 15, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2718. August 18, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed nuclei- Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis Aronin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Bean and Jenkins]. 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 certain em- ployees 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. The parties are in agreement that the Employer 's production and maintenance employees, excluding foundry employees, constitute an -appropriate unit. They are in dispute, however, with respect to the employees of Southern Tool and Die , certain clerical employees, and certain leadmen, all of whom the Petitioner would exclude from the unit and the Employer would include. The employees of Southern Tool and Die are classified as machine operators, machinists, and tool and die makers . They work in the same bulding as other employees of the Employer and enjoy the same working conditions and benefits as the other employees. The Southern 1 The record shows that Southern Steel & Stove Company, Inc., Hunter Window Corpo- ration, Southern Machinery Corporation, and Southern Tool and Die Co., Inc., are four corporations which are subject to common ownership and have a common labor relations policy and a common location (all the employees are housed in interconnected buildings). There is some interchange of employees among the four companies. In view of the fore- going, we find that the four companies constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act Jones Sausage Company, et el., 118 NLRB 1403, enfd 257 F. 2d 878 (C.A. 4). 124 NLRB No. 77. 525543-60-vol. 124---38 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Tool and Die employees make products which ire used by the other companies and also do all the maintenance work for all the companies. The Petitioner would exclude these disputed employees because it claims to have no jurisdiction over machinists and tool and die makers. As the Petitioner has advanced no cogent reason for excluding the employees of Southern Tool and Die and as no other union seeks to represent them separately, we find that they should be included in the production and maintenance unit.2 Employees Buckingham, King, Turner, Arnold, and Holms, the clerical employees sought to be excluded by the Petitioner, work in the plant area under the supervision of the production and control man- ager. They are engaged in inventory control, filling requisitions, and the issuance of work orders. As the record shows that these employees are plant clericals, we shall include them in the unit.' The Petitioner would exclude from the unit leadmen E. M. Gibson, Peter Mason, George Houston, Donald Underwood, Peter C. O'Brien, and George D. Major on the ground that they are supervisors. As the record is clear that these leadmen do not have the authority to hire or discharge employees with whom they work or effectively recommend such action and that such authority as they possess does not involve the use of independent judgment, but is routine in nature, we find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.4 Accord- ingly, we shall include them in the unit.5 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 at the Employer's Richmond, Virginia, plant, including the employees of Southern Tool and Die Co., Inc., plant clerical employees, and lead- men, but excluding the foundry employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The unit found appropriate is larger than that sought by the Peti- tioner and neither the exact size of the unit nor the exact interest of the Petitioner in the unit is clear from the record before us. Accord- ingly, we instruct the Regional Director not to proceed with the elec- tion herein directed, until he shall have first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit.' In the event that the Petitioner 2 Comfort Slipper Corporation, 111 NLRB 188, 189. 3 Lilliston Implement Company, 121 NLRB 868. 4 West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 122 NLRB 738. G As the parties agree that employees Burton and Ladd are not supervisors, they are also included in the unit ; and as the parties agree that employees Budge, Salva , Shufford, Hamlin, Ashworth, Breeden, Harris, Howard, Whitlow, Palmer, and Mallory are super- visors, we shall exclude them from the unit. ° Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp ., 122 NLRB 1512 ; Foremost Dairies, Inc., 118 NLRB 1424 , 1428, footnote 7. THE OHIO VALLEY GAS COMPANY 579 does not wish to participate in an election in such unit, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of issuance of this Direction, and shall there- upon-vacate the Direction of Election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] The Ohio Valley Gas Company and William C. Rapp , Petitioner and Kenova Local 10-372 Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-RD-218. August 18, 1959 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 Harry David Camp, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative, as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act, of the em- ployees involved. The Union is a labor organization currently recog- nized by the Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees. 3. The Petitioner seeks a decertification election in a unit of pro- duction and maintenance employees in the Employer's Ironton, Ohio, natural gas service district. The Union contends that its current con- tract covering these employees operates as a bar to the petition herein, which was filed on February 24, 1959. The Employer is neutral as to the contract-bar issue. The contract was executed on November 13, 1957, and is effective to October 1, 1959, with a 60-day automatic re- newal clause. The Petitioner asserts that the contract is not a bar, urging that the checkoff clause on its face contains an ambiguity per- mitting irrevocable dues deduction authorizations which exceed the time limitations set forth in Section 302(c) (4) of the Act. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the latter contention. In the recent Deluxe Metal case 1 which, inter alia, announced the new contract-bar rules relating to the timeliness of petitions, the Board stated : Henceforth, where there is a subsisting contract, a petition filed more than 150 days before the terminal date of a contract will be regarded as premature and will be dismissed unless a hea?^ing is I Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995. 124 NLRB No. 76.