Illini Steel Fabricators, Inc.

ILLINI STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. Illini Steel Fabricators, Inc. and District Lodge 154 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-9089 June 6, 1972 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was heid before Hearing Officer Douglas J. Muir. Thereafter, the Regional Director for Region 9 issued an order remanding the instant case for further hearing because the record was inadequate for the purposes of making the necessary determina- tions. In a subsequent hearing, held before Hearing Officer Jack V. Baker, the parties were advised that the Board had ordered Case 9-RC-9089 to be consolidated for hearing with Case 9-CA-6318, an unfair labor practice case involving the same parties. After further hearing, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt issued his Decision in the consolidated proceeding on February 10, 1972. The Trial Examin- er resolved the issue concerning the supervisory status of James Woolridge i and recommended that the representation case be severed and remanded to the Regional Director for any further appropriate action. On February 10, 1972, by direction of the Board, an order was issued severing and remanding said case. On March 6, 1972, by direction of the Board, an order issued correcting said order of February 10, 1972, amending the Trial Examiner's Decision by striking the last paragraph of the recommended Order in its entirety relating to severance of the representation case, and ordering Case 9-RC-9089 to be transferred to and continued before the Board for decision.2 The Employer subsequently filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made at the hearings and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On the entire record in this proceeding, including the Employer's brief, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within 1 The Trial Examiner also appears to find that Robert Mooney is a supervisor, but we are not adopting that finding in the CA case because, in our view, the record does not permit a definitive finding as to Mooney's 197 NLRB No. 45 303 the meaning of the Act and' it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer, Illini Steel Fabricators, Inc., an Illinois corporation, has plant facilities located in Monticello, Illinois, and Benton, Kentucky, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of fabricated steel products. At its Benton plant, the facility involved herein, the Employer employs an average work force of approximately 14 employees. The parties stipulated that an appropriate unit consists of all production and maintenance employ- ees of Illini Steel Fabricators, Inc., excluding all clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Trial Examiner found and concluded that James Woolridge was, at all times material to this case, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The Trial Examiner based his conclusion in this regard on the following evidence: Woolridge was brought to the Benton plant from Respondent's Monticello plant with monetary in- ducements to make the move. From the outset of the operation in August 1970 until at least June 20, 1971, he has received at least $3.60 an hour, at least a dollar more than any other plant employee. He had a separate arrangement with management (which was alleged to have been discontinued in March 1971 because of Respondent's financial condition) where- by he was to receive 1 percent of the gross profits from the sale of items produced in the shop. He was in complete charge of the plant from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., when no other supervisor was there. He had authority to make work assignments, to shift employ- ees from one job to another, to direct the work of employees, to initial their timecards, and to assign overtime. He had authority to purchase small items, which other employees could not do. He notified employees when it was time for them to take breaks, stop for lunch, and quit by blowing a whistle in the shop. He supervised the loading and unloading of materials, and he made up the shop "cut sheets" showing the amount and size of material to be cut and used in the fabrication operation. Employees were instructed to call him at the plant or at home if they were unable to report for work for any reason. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, we agree with the Trial Examiner that James Woolridge is a status 2 This representation case is hereby severed from unfair labor practice Case 9-CA-6318 for purpose of decision 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude him from the unit. The only issues remaining in this case involve the status of Robert Mooney, Levi Scott, and Richard Cope. The Petitioner contends that they, like James Woolridge, are supervisors and should be excluded from the unit. The Employer alleges that they are 3 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L. R B v Wyman -Gordon Co, 394 U.S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed leadmen and should be included in the unit. As to the status of Mooney, Scott, and Cope, we find that the record before us is inadequate to make a proper determination with respect thereto. We shall, there- fore, allow Mooney, Scott, and Cope to vote under challenge. [Direction of Election3 omitted from publication.] by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed