Mayfair Industries, Inc.

MAYFAIR INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED 223 We think if the Umon leaves us alone we can keep all of our present employees whether they are 16 or 76, as long as they want to stay with us We have given our employees steady employment Personally, I think most of you would rather have work year round All of you know the fine record our Company has for steady work everyone is kept fully employed In recent weeks not nearly so many people have been walking off the job or leaving us shorthanded because they appreciate the steady work here in the face of unemployment elsewhere I promise you we will continue to make improvements as fast as we can find the money to do them with This would include vacations, holiday pay, pay increases, etc Improvements you have gotten in the past have been for free and the improvements in the future can be for free As in the case of the Slogans on the placards and buttons, the above letters and speech contain veiled and subtle threats of reprisal if the Union won the election and implied promises of benefit if the Union lost It was part of the Respondent's campaign to instill fear of loss of employment if the employees voted for the Umon In my opinion, such conduct on the Respondent's part substantially and materially interfered with the employees' free choice at the election, and I so find The import of these slogans, letters, and speech must have been clear to the employees in view of the numerous acts of unlawful conduct by Respondent's officers and supervisors found herein While I find that the above conduct interfered with the election, I do not find that the letters and speech were violative of the Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act W THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section `III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce. and the free flow of commerce V THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,` District Union 431, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act 3 The aforesaid unf air labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication I Mayfair Industries, Incorporated and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 21, Petitioner. Case No 15-RC-2071 January 19, 1960 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 C. Dale Stout, hearing of- 126 NLRB No 35 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ficer. 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 Fanning]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. The Employer refused to stipulate at the hearing that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. As it appears that the Petitioner exists for the pur- pose of bargaining with employers on behalf of its members concern- ing terms and conditions of employment, we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.' 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 to represent the production and mainte- nance employees at the Employers Lafayette, Louisiana, plant, but would exclude leadmen and inspectors as supervisors. The Employer ' The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the constitution of the Petitioner's International Union prohibits the Petitioner from representing the Employer 's employees . We find no merit in this contention It is the Petitioner's will- ingness, rather than its constitutional ability to represent these employees which is the controlling factor F C Russell Company, 116 NLRB 1015, footnote 5. We also find no merit in the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the alleged ground that the Petitioner is affiliated with certain organizations which were not in compliance with former Section 9(f), (g), and ( h) of the Act at the time the petition was filed The record does not establish that these organizations are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act and thus subject to the filing requirements then in force. After the hearing, on November 5, 1959, Shopmen ' s Local Union No. 619, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 619, filed a motion for intervention by telegram , asserting that it was not notified of this proceeding until after the hearing herein and that it has an adequate showing of interest among the Employer s production and maintenance employees , and requesting that it be placed on the ballot in any election which may be directed herein The Employer opposes the motion on the ground ( 1) that the telegram does not comply with the Board's Rules regarding bringing of notions . and (2) that Local 619 has not made an adequate showing of interest in the unit , alleged to be appropriate by Local 619, which is larger than that sought by the Petitioner In its opposition , the Employer also requests that , before an election is directed herein, the record be reopened to allow it to show that Local 619 is not a labor organization We find no merit in these contentions of the Employer. As to compliance with our rules for printing of motions, we observe that Local 619 selected the most expeditious method to intervene herein and that no party has been prejudiced by noncompliance with the printing rules Under these circum- stances, we waive technical compliance with such rules in this case As to showing of interest, Local 619 has expressed a desire to participate in any election directed by the Board. More specifically, it has requested a place on the ballot even in the event that the Board finds appropriate the unit of production and maintenance employees sought by the Petitioner We are administratively satisfied that Local 619 has made a timely and sufficient showing of interest among the Employer's production and maintenance em- ployees, and its motion to intervene is granted As to the request to reopen the record, it is denied as the Board has recently determined that Local 619 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. II'oodwerd-Wight & Co, Ltd , Case No. 15-RC-2000, dated August 11, 1959 ( unpublished). MAYFAIR INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED 225 agrees except that it would include these two categories, contending that they are nonsupervisory. The leadn en: The leadmen who are more experienced than their fellow workers work in the production area, performing manual labor and transmitting communications from foremen to employees: on the assembly line. Like production workers, the leadmen are hourly paid and punch timeclocks. They have no authority to hire,, discharge, or effectively recommend changes in the employment status of other workers. Contrary to the Petitioner, we find that the lead- men are not supervisors, and we shall include them in the unit. The inspectors: The inspectors, 10 in number, are the last employ- ees on the production line. They make the final inspection of the finished product under the direction of the chief inspector, an admitted supervisor. Inspectors are hourly paid and receive the same employee benefits as production workers. Although an inspector may reject defective products, he has no authority to discipline other employees or to direct them as to the manner of performance of their work. He has no authority to hire, discharge, or effectively recommend such, action. In an earlier case involving the Employer's predecessor 2 inspectors were included in the unit. We find that the inspectors are not supervisors, and we shall, in accord with the Employer, include them. At the hearing, although no one contended otherwise, the Employer adduced evidence which showed that certain employees were plant clerical employees. The record discloses that these employees per- form clerical duties in the plant or in the factory office. They work with, or in proximity to, production and maintenance employees. They are hourly paid and receive the same employee benefits as pro- duction workers. Accordingly, we shall include these plant clericals,, namely, the receiving clerk, the production scheduling clerk, the material controls clerk, the time clerks, the inventory clerks, the stockers, the expediters, and the utility man in the plantwide unit. Truckdrivers were included in the overall unit previously found appropriate. Since that time, their duties have not changed. No one seeks to represent them separately. Accordingly, we shall include them. There remains for consideration the unit placement of the follow- ing classifications of employees: The shipping clerk: The Employer would exclude the shipping clerk as a supervisor. This employee ordinarily packs and loads fin- ished products. For about 2 hours each day, in the absence of super- visors, he "directs" shipping department employees; however, the nature and extent of such direction is not shown. The record is clear 2 Croft Louisiana, Inc, Case No 15-RC-1499, dated July 22, 1957 (unpublished) 554461-60-vol. 126-16 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that he may not discharge other shipping department employees. The shipping clerk was included in the unit previously found appropriate, and it does not appear that his duties have changed since that time. As the record does not show that the shipping clerk has any super- visory authority, we shall include him in the unit. The nurse: The record shows that the Employer employs a nurse who administers first aid and otherwise performs the usual duties of her profession. In conformity with our usual practice, we shall exclude her front the unit 3 because of her diverse interests. We find that the following employees at the Employer's Lafayette, Louisiana, plant, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, including the receiving clerk, the shipping clerk, the production scheduling clerk, the material controls clerk, the time clerks, inventory clerks, stockers, expediters, the utility man, truckdrivers, inspectors, and leadmen, but excluding the chief inspector, the nurse, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 The Bailey Department Stores Co , 120 NLRB 1239, 1242 International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 1445, and Its Agent John Haney and Roy Lumpkins and Fenix & Scisson, Inc., Party to the Contract. Case No. 9-CB-490. January 20, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On June 29, 1959, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond, ents filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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, Bean, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in 126 NLRB No. 34.