Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co.

In the Matter of LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY and LOCAL No. 103, UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. R- 468. Decided May 3, 1941 Jurisdiction : glass manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re- fusal to accord union recognition ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : office, clerical, and laboratory em- ployees at one of the Company's plants excluding supervisory employees, executives, and department heads. Mr. Leland L. Lord, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Company. Mr. John J. Stanley,' of New York City, for the Union. Mr. Herbert Shenkin, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF, ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 22, 1941, Local No. 103, United Office and Professional Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or- ganizations, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, herein' called the Company, at its Charleston, West Virginia, plant, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the' National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April 2, 1941, the National Labor Relations, Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Sec- tion 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations _ Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. ' On April 3, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and' the Union. 31 N. L. R. B., No. 93. 569 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on April 11, 1941, at Charleston, West Virginial before Walter B. Chief, the Trial Ex- aminer duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Com- pany, was represented by counsel and the Union by its representa- tive; both participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed, the rulings of the Trial Examiner and - finds that no' prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS , OF THE ' COMPANY Libbey=Ovens-Ford Glass Company is an Ohio corporation, with its principal office and place of business in Toledo, Ohio. It is en- gaged in the manufacture, sale, and, distribution of many types of flat glass and has six plants located in Louisiana, Illinois, Ohio, and West Virginia. The present proceeding concerns only the Charleston, West Virginia, plant where the' Company manufactures sheet glass and rough plate glass. During the year 1940, approxi- mately 220,000 tons of rauv materials were used for manufacturing glass- at, the Charleston plant. More than 90-per cent of these' ma- terials were shipped to the Charleston plant from points outside the State of West Virginia. Of the glass manufactured at the Charles- ton plant, more,than 90, per cent was shipped to points outside the State of West Virginia: There are approximately,,1',500 employees at the Charleston plant. The Company, stipulated at the hearing -that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning, of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local No. 103, United Office and Professional Workers of America, affiliated with' the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership all employees in offices and with offices as headquarters. ,HI.- THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Union, by letter dated February 19, 1941, requested the Com- pany to bargain with it, as the representative of a majority of the office workers in the Charleston plant. On March 7, 1941, the Com- pany replied by letter refusing-to bargain with: the Union until it 'had been selected by a majority of the employees in an appropriate LIBBY-OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY 571 unit after "some authoritative determination" has been made of the questions of unit and majority. A statement of the Trial Examiner at the hearing indicates that a substantial number of the Com- pany's employees within the unit alleged and hereafter found to be appropriate - have designated the Union as their bargaining repre- sentative? We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE - We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection' with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to -labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The petition filed by the Union describes the appropriate unit as including "all office, clerical, and laboratory employees with the exception of executives and department heads" at the Charleston plant. The Company makes no contention with regard to the appro- priateness of this unit 'and its counsel stated at the hearing that the Company would accept the Board's determination on the point. As indicated above, the parties are in agreement that 60 named persons on the April 1, 1941, salaried pay roll are supervisory employees and should be excluded from the appropriate unit. The Union claims, however, that 11 additional persons on the salaried pay roll should be excluded from the appropriate unit and we proceed, to a discussion of these cases. Charles A. Adains is listed on the pay roll as Chief Undersurface Inspector. The record indicates that Adams has three or four men under him and that he is responsible for reporting the working time of these men. None of the other undersurface inspectors are on the salaried pay roll. We find that Adams is a supervisory employee and should be,excluded from the appropriate unit. The Trial Examiner stated on the record that he had examined 46 signed applications for membership in the Union and that these signatures appear to be genuine . He further stated that he had examined the salaried pay roll of the Charleston plant for April 1, 1941, submitted by the Company at the hearing. The Trial Examiner stated that there were 144 names on this pay roll, and that all parties had agreed that 60 of these persons, whose names were checked in blue ink, were supervisory employees and therefore to be excluded from the appropriate unit. He stated that the name of each of the 46 persons who had signed applications for membership in the Union was on that pay roll . There are 76 persons in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate. 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Semo Baria is listed on the pay roll as Personnel and Employment 'Supervisor -and Paymaster. The record indicates that Baria; is in charge of the employment records and that he arranges to supply employees to the various departments as they are needed. We find that Baria is a supervisory employee and should be excluded from the appropriate unit., Aubrey T. Bracken; Ernest Comer, Charles E. Crotty, Audrey E. Drennan and Jinks Morris, although their names appeared on the salaried pay roll, are production workers who do little or no office, clerical, or laboratory work. For this reason, we find that these five men should be excluded from the appropriate unit. Paul F. Steinbicker is listed on the pay roll as Safety Engineer and the record indicates that his duties are to take care of injuries, make recommendations on safety appliances, and keep all records with regard to safety work. We find that Steinbicker's duties so. identify him with management that he should be excluded as a supervisory employee. John L. Gram is listed on the pay roll as Tank Apprentice and his work was described in the record as being clerical in nature. Since there is no testimony that he has any supervisory authority, we shall include him in the appropriate unit. William E. Roberts is listed on the pay roll as Chemist and the record indicates that he does regular laboratory work. Since there is no evidence that he has any supervisory authority, we shall include him in the appropriate unit. Paul Silvernale is listed on the pay roll as Chief Draftsman. There appears to be but one other draftsman on the salaried pay roll and the parties agree that that man should be in the -appropriate unit. There is insufficient evidence in the record to make a finding that Silvernale exercises such supervisory authority as would war- rant our excluding him from the unit. We therefore shall include him. We find that all the office, clerical, and laboratory employees at the Charleston plant of the Company, excluding supervisory em- ployees, executives, and department heads, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company, in the Charleston plant the full benefit of their right to self=organization and to collective ,bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. We shall direct that all employees of the Company at the Charleston plant in the appropriate unit as indicated in Section V above, who were LIBBY-OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY 573' employed during the pay-roll period preceding this Direction of Election, subject to such limitations and additions as are set forth in the Direction, shall be eligible to vote. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record, in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the rep- resentation of employees of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company at its Charleston, West Virginia plant, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. ' 2. All office, clerical, and laboratory employees of the Company at the Charleston plant, excluding supervisory employees, executives, and department heads, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III,,Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby - - DIRECTED that,, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., at its Charleston, West Virginia plant, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Election, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all office, clerical, and laboratory employees employed by the Company during, the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including any who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or 'in active military service or training of the United States, or .temporarily laid off, but excluding supervisory employees, executives, and de- partment heads, and any who have since quit or' been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local No. 103, United Office' and 'Professional Workers 'of America, affiliated .with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining.