Ball Plastics Division

BALL PLASTICS DIVISION Ball Plastics Division and International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 26-RC-5275 March 14, 1977 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On August 11, 1976, the Regional Director for Region 26 issued his Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative in which he overruled all of the Employer's objections to conduct affecting the resalts of the election and sustained the challeng- es to six ballots in the election held on July 1, 1976.1 Thereafter, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision contending, inter alia, that he erred in sustaining the challenges to the ballots of Tom Noel, Richard Lane, Tony Reeves, and Jeff Jones. By telegraphic order dated October 15, 1976, the National Labor Relations Board granted the request for review insofar as it related to the challenged ballots of Noel, Lane, Reeves, and Jones, and denied review in all other respects.2 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 considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issue under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of molded plastic :products, with its principal place of business in Evansville, Indiana, and with another facility in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The Employer's exceptions relate to the challenges to the ballots of employees Noel, Lane, Reeves, and Jones. Noel, Lane, and Reeves are denominated as "group leaders" in the vacuum form department at the Employer's facility in Fort Smith, Arkansas, Jones is referred to as a group leader in the shipping department at the same facility. The Regional Director found that Noel, Lane, Reeves, and Jones were all supervisors within the meaning of the Act and sustained Petitioner's challenges to their ballots. In making this determina- tion, the Regional Director found that, as part of their duties, these employees insure the proper I The tally of ballots for the election showed that 13 eligible voters cast ballots for, and 12 against, the Petitioner. Six ballots were challenged The challenges are determinative of the results of the election. 2 By telegraphic order dated June 30, 1976, the Board issued an order 228 NLRB No. 7 633 quantity and quality of work produced, train and instruct new employees, issue verbal reprimands, and generally play a "major role" in the Employer's disciplinary system. In disputing the Regional Director's findings with respect to the disciplinary role of the four employees in question, the Employer asserts that Noel, Lane, Reeves, and Jones are only conduits utilized to relay the instructions and carry out the commands of admitted supervisory personnel. It argues that these individuals play no role in the formal disciplinary system of the company and that any discipline meted out emanates directly from admitted supervision after personal observation of the employee in question. We find merit in the contentions of the Employer that these four employees are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and that the challenged ballots of these four employees should be opened and counted. With respect to the group leaders in the vacuum form department, the record reveals that these employees spend 100 percent of their time on the production floor and are engaged primarily in the actual operation of the production machines. The Employer's production schedule is determined in a routine manner, with the use of the various machines dictated by seniority. The highest grade of pay for the group leaders is $4.53 per hour, while the next highest grade (the setup man) is $4.41 per hour. The four employees in question do not make employee job evaluations, recommend merit increases, and cannot grant time off, hire, or fire. The additional responsibilities that the group leaders are engaged in include the routine maintenance of the quantity and quality of work produced, the training of new employees, and the issuance of "verbal reprimands" to employees. The first two duties are not necessarily dispositive of the issue of supervisory status, inas- much as these duties are often associated with either "leadmen" or supervisory personnel. The last added responsibility is more normally indicative of supervi- sory status if in fact discipline is imposed through the exercise of independent judgment on the part of the group leaders. With respect to employee Lane, the Regional Director's report and the record as a whole indicate that he does not issue warnings without first consulting with the admitted supervisor of the vacuum form department, Richard Huffman. On one occasion when Lane did recommend a written reprimand for an employee, he was overruled by denying the Employer's request for review but directing that Quality Control Supervisor Moore and the five "Group Leaders be allowed to vote subject to challenge." 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Huffman. Similarly, the record reveals that Reeves and Noel regularly consult Huffman before taking any disciplinary action, and Huffman will normally conduct his own independent investigation. In support of a finding of like authority on the part of Jones, group leader in the shipping department, the Regional Director refers to a writeup form used by the Employer and signed by Huffman, Jones, and the employee. The writeup form itself does not reveal any particular supervisory capabilities on the part of Jones, but instead merely inquires as to whether an employee who has voluntarily disqualified himself from consideration for a particular job has been given the proper instructions in order to reestablish his former job classification. Further, it appears from the record that whatever effect the writeup form had it was prepared at the express instruction of the Employer's personnel manager, Pat Eickhoff.3 While it is true that the shipping department consists of only Jones and another employee, Jones is specifical- ly instructed with regard to the nature and quantity of items to be shipped, and consults with Wiley, the Employer's production and material controls manag- er, on a regular basis. Similarly, while Huffman is not always present for all three shifts in the vacuum form department, explicit instructions are left for group 7 In making his determination as to the status of the four challenged employees, the Regional Director relied on our decision in Berton Kirshner, Inc, 209 NLRB 1081 (1974), for the proposition that these employees enjoyed supervisory status. While the employee found to be a supervisor in Berton Kirshner shared several duties similar to the employees in the instant case, there were other factors in the Berton Kirshner decision, absent here, which contributed to a finding of supervisory status. For instance, the leaders to carry out, and they are instructed to call Huffman in the event of an unusual circumstance. In view of the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we find that the four challenged employees do not possess the requisite supervisory indicia to support a finding that they are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. As indicated above, the challenged employees are engaged in actual produc- tion work for the great majority of their time, with any additional duties being of a routine or instruc- tional nature. Although the group leaders occasional- ly make recommendations as to disciplinary matters, the department foremen or the personnel manager will not act on these recommendations without first making their own independent investigation of the matter.4 Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of opening and counting the four ballots of Noel, Lane, Reeves, and Jones and issuing a revised tally of ballots. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the instant case be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director to open and count the four challenged ballots of Noel, Lane, Reeves, and Jones and issue a revised tally of ballots and an appropriate certification. employee found to be supervisor in Berton Kirshner regularly made out progress reports on employees in her department which rated job performance with respect to attitude and skills as well as recommending wage increases. In addition, the employee in Berton Kirshner independently issued warning notices to employees with poor lob performance ratings. 4 Wirtz Manufacturing Company, 215 NLRB 252 (1974); Risdon Manufac- turing Company, Inc, 195 NLRB 579 (1972).