Thompson, Weinman and Co.

THOMPSON, WEINMAN AND CO AND PAGA MINING CO . 301 i in any event, be severed 6 Finally, even assuming that the remaining maintenance men could qualify as craftsmen in the trades in which they work and could therefore constitute an appropriate unit, there is no showing that the Petitioner is the traditional representative for such crafts 7 In these circumstances, we grant the motions of the Em- ployer and the Intervenor, and we shall dismiss the petition [The Board dismissed the petition ] s Louis F Dow Company, 111 NLRB 609, 610 4 Union Steam Pump Company, supra American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 I`LRB 1418 Thompson, Weinman and Company and Paga Mining Company and United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No 10-RC-4466 Novem- ber 23, 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 Stephen D Rise, 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 National Labor Relations 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 entnxe record in this case, the Board finds 1 The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 2 The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employers 3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 4 The Petitioner seeks a single unit comprising all production and maintenance employees of both companies The Employers, while conceding that the unit described in the petition is appropriate, con- tend that there should be separate units for each company because each is a separate entity, engaged in the production of different products, and because there is little interchange of employees between the companies The record indicates that Thompson, Weinman and Company owns all of the stock of Paga Mining Company and that both corporations have the same officers Although separate payrolls, accounting, and financial statements are maintained for the two companies, they share 125 NLRB No 32 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the same general office and office staffs and, while the two companies have separate employees and different equipment, they have a common production manager, who divides his time about equally between the two operations. Thompson, Weinman and Company is engaged in the grinding of extender and filler pigment products. Paga Mining Com- pany is engaged in the mining, processing, and pulverizing of barytes ore. The construction crew of Paga Mining Company handles all construction work for both companies and, although its employees are paid on the mining company's payroll, payment for the services involved is adjusted in the accounting department. The electrical department and machine shop of Thompson, Weinman and Company does maintenance work for both companies. The two companies also share the services of a carpenter and a storeroom man. The major operations of each company are approximately 3 miles apart. In view of their common ownership, supervision and control over labor relations, the proximity of the two operations, their joint use of maintenance facilities and services, and the interchange of person- nel and equipment, we find that Thompson, Weinman and Company and Paga Mining Company constitute a single employer for purposes of collective bargaining and that a single unit comprising the em- ployees of both companies is appropriate.' The parties do not agree as to the supervisory status of certain individuals. Superintendent of black aslt plant: This individual is in sole charge of an ore grinding plant, which is physically separated from other facilities of the Employer, where he assigns and directs the work of four employees. He is directly responsible to the Employer's produc- tion manager. He processes grievances, grants time off, and effectively recommends wage increases. Accordingly, we find that he is a super- visor within the meaning of the act. Electrical department foreman: The Employer contends that this employee is in complete charge of its electrical department. The record indicates, however, that he was never told that he was a fore- man, that he does not direct the work of two generator men assigned to the electrical department, that he spends all his working time in the performance of manual electrical maintenance work, that he is paid on an hourly basis, and that he is assisted regularly by one helper. Although he did recommend the employment of his helper he does not normally make effective recommendations relating to personnel action. We find that this employee does not possess any of the indicia of super- visory status and that the direction exercised by him is that of a more experienced worker over a less experienced person. Accordingly, we include him in the bargaining unit.' 'Threads-Incorporated, 121 NLRB 1507. 'Vernon Calhoun Packing Company, Inc., 117 NLRB 104; United States Gypsum Company, 121 NLRB 370. THOMPSON, WEINMAN AND CO. AND PAGA MINING CO. 303 Machine shop foreman: This employee, like the electrical shop foreman, was never informed that he was a foreman. He has never hired, discharged, transferred, or promoted any employees or made recommendations with respect to such personnel action and was un- aware that any such power was reposed in him. All of his working time is spent in the actual physical performance of the work of his trade, in which he is assisted by another machinist and a welder. He is hourly paid and his wage is not substantially higher than that of his assistants. In the performance of his maintenance duties he re- ceives detailed instructions from the production manager and the supervisors in whose departments he may be working. The direction he exercises is technical and of the sort normally exercised by the more-experienced over the less-experienced employees. We therefore find that the machine shop foreman is not a supervisor and include him in the bargaining unit. The Petitioner would include in the bargaining unit two watchmen employed by Paga Mining Company. The Employers take no posi- tion with respect to these employees. These watchmen look after two ore washers which are physically separated from the principal plant in order to protect them from fire and vandalism. They are not armed, uniformed, or deputized. They do some oiling and greasing when time permits and regularly notify the generator men at the Thompson, Weinman plant when they are to shut off their pumps. Although they sometimes spend as much as half of their time servicing trucks, their principal duty is plant protection. We find that the watchmen are guards within the meaning of the Act, and we exclude them from the unit.3 The Employers would include in, and the Petitioner would exclude from, the unit a part-time employee who is a student and the son of the superintendent of the white goods department. During the sum- mer months this individual works full time for Thompson, Weinman and Company. In the winter months when school is in session he has no regular, fixed working schedule. The Employers state that he may work as much as he wants to and as much as his studies permitted. The Employers were unable to state how much time this employee would work each week but did state that whenever he wished to work they would make a place for him. In the circumstances, and in ac- ^cordance with our policy of including only regular, part-time em- ployees in bargaining units, we shall exclude him from the unit because of the intermittent, irregular, and indefinite nature of his employment .4 The parties do not agree on the voting eligibility of certain laid-off employees. On July 27, 1959, the Employers discontinued operation 3 Armstrong Cork Company, South Gate Plant, 117 NLRB 262. 'Dixie Wax Paper Company, 117 NLRB 548. 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of 2 ore-washers and laid off 23 employees of Paga Mining Company. It appears from the record that in December 1958 one of the Em- ployers' largest purchasers of ground barytes terminated its contract for 1958 and 1959 and it was subsequently arranged to extend delivery of the tonnage contracted for over a 3-year period. This represented a 60 percent decline in the 1959 sales of the product and necessitated the stockpiling of 90 percent of the ore mined during the past year. The Employers state that it does not anticipate an increase in the requirements of the two customers which account for 90 percent of Paga's production, within the next 2 or 3 years. Although the Employer's do not have a seniority system, there is testimony to the effect that laid-off employees usually are, and will be, recalled before new employees are hired in the event that business conditions improve. The Employers do not expect business to im- prove within the next 2 to 3 years and it submitted evidence that the entire industry is experiencing a slack period. Since the record does not indicate a definite prospect of improved business conditions which would warrant recall of the laid-off employees in the near future, we find that the laid-off employees have no reasonable expectancy of reemployment within the foreseeable future and that they, accord- ingly, are ineligible to vote in the election directed herein.' We find that the following employees of the Employers constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees of Thompson, Weinman and Company and of the Paga Mining Company at their Cartersville,. Georgia, operations, including leadermen, laboratory employees, con- struction employees, janitors, and all mine employees, including employees employed at processing and pulverizing plants, truck- drivers, and storeroom employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, full-time foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 L. & S. Machine Company, Inc., 121 NLRB 266. Crookston Times Printing Company and John R. Kelly, Attorney for Employees. Case No. 18-CA-979. November 04, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On June 18, 1959, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Inter- mediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had granted 125 NLRB No. 38. i