Greenfield Components Corp.

GREENFIELD COMPONENTS CORPORATION 757 all expenses of operation, including wages. Crotty invests no capital and has no control over any matter which would permit it to profit from the operation. The budget is jointly prepared by Sister Cath- erine Marie, Trinity's director of food services, and Mr. Muise, Crot- ty's manager of food services. Within budget limits, Muise hires and fires employees and sets wage rates. He regards Sister Catherine Marie as his boss and testified that "as a matter of policy" he discusses all problems he has with either Sister Catherine Marie or Sister Alice Clement, Trinity's treasurer, and would never act without their prior approval on matters affecting labor relations. Sister Catherine Marie spends most of her time in food service work. Upon the entire record, we find that the food service operations here involved are noncommercial in nature and intimately connected with Trinity's nonprofit educational purposes, and that, whatever the legal relationship existing between Trinity and Crotty, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction herein.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 See Young Men's Christian Association of Portland, Oregon, 146 NLRB 20; The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York , supra, and cases cited therein at footnote 3 Cf. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 143 NLRB 568. Greenfield Components Corporation and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. Case No. 1-CA-3418. April 10, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On January 24, 1962, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and issued an appropriate remedial order. The unfair labor practices found included the Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union with regard to a stipulated produc- tion and maintenance unit found appropriate by the Trial Examiner.' On May 10, 1963, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted the Board's application for a decree enforcing the Board's Order.' 1135 NLRB 479. 2 The stipulated unit is described as follows: All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent employed at its Greenfield, Massachusetts, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, pro- fessional employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. IN.L.R.B. v. Greenfield Components Corporation, 317 F. 2d 85 (C.A. 1). 146 NLRB No. 87. 758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On July 5, 1963, the Union filed a motion to clarify the appropriate unit, contending that two monitors should be- included in the unit of production and maintenance employees. The Respondent sought to exclude them as supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Pursuant to an order of the Board, a hearing was held on the motion on October 24, 1963, before Hearing Officer Arnold M. Mar- row. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Union submitted a brief to the Board in support of its position. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board had delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record at the hearing, the Board makes the following findings. The classification of monitors was created in January 1962, sub- sequent to the commission of the unfair labor practices noted in our previous decision. Of the 2 monitors currently in the Respondent's employ, 1 is assigned to the sealing department, which has a fore-_ man, an assistant foreman, and 18 to 20 employees; the other is as- signed to the inspection department, which has a foreman and 10 to 12 employees. It is undisputed that the foreman and the assistant foreman are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Prior to becoming a monitor, the sealing room monitor was for 2 years an assembler in the sealing department and was then assigned to the sealing department furnace, used in heat-treating components prepared in that department. Her work includes: picking up of com- ponent jigs from assembly department employees; sorting the com- ponents and placing them in the furnace; spot checking them as they move through the furnace and preparing tickets therefor; inspecting the components during the heat-treating process; and reporting the defective ones. Such work appears to be substantially similar to that which she performed prior to becoming a monitor. The work of the inspection department monitor includes inspec- tion work on a special assembly line called AQL, or "accepted quality level," where there is inspection by sample only, as compared to the 100 percent inspection which other inspection department employees perform. This is the same work she performed before she became a monitor. The specific testimony adduced at the hearing establishes the fol- lowing facts : 4 The monitors do not hire, discharge, or effectuate 4 These facts were adduced from the testimony of the sealing department monitor, a co- worker in that department , and an employee who worked with the inspection department monitor. Although the Respondent's president gave contrary testimony which purported to show that the monitors may effectively recommend changes in employment status and may responsibly direct employees , we find it of less probative value because it was con- cluslonary and less specific in nature. FORT SMITH BROADCASTING COMPANY 759 changes in employment status. As intermediaries between their de- partment foreman and the other employees in their respective depart- partments, they routinely distribute work on the foremen's specific instructions and relay to the foremen all grievances and requests for time off or requests for raises received from employees. They are hourly paid, punch timeclocks, do not attend supervisors' meetings, and have substantially the same hours, vacations, and other conditions of employment as the employees they assist. They collaborate with the foremen or the assistant foremen in instructing new employees. They report defective work, but their recommendations in that regard are not solicited. They seek to remedy defective work by warning and assisting employees in correcting their errors. Although they re- ceive slightly higher pay since their promotion to monitors, such pay merely reflects their greater skill and experience. On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the two monitors herein are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act and that they are properly includible in the established production and maintenance unit.' [The Board granted the motion to clarify the bargaining unit filed by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America by including in the production and maintenance unit those employees classified as monitors.] 5 Phalo Plastics Corporation, 127 NLRB 1511. Fort Smith Broadcasting Company and International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union 1304. Case No. 26-CA-1554. April 13, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On December 11, 1963, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent 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 attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Deci- sion and supporting briefs. 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 McCulloch and Mem- bers Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. 146 NLRB No. 99.