Essex Wire Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1384 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ESSEX WIRE CORPORATION and FOREMAN'S
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CHAPTER #224
Case No. 7-R-2117.-Decided March, 29, 1946
Mr. Walter Probst, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company.
Messrs. William Valiance and Carl Brown, both of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of America,
Chapter #224, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Essex Wire Corporation, Highland Park, Michigan,
herein called the Company, the. National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before David
Citrin, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan,
on various dates between October 2 and 15, 1945, inclusive. The
Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the hearing, the Company moved, on various grounds, for dis-
missal of the petition. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the
motion for the Board. For reasons hereinafter set forth in Sections
III and IV, infra, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Essex Wire Corporation, a Michigan corporation with its principal
office and place of business located at Highland Park, Michigan, is
66 N. L. R. B. No. 168.
1384
ESSEX WIRE CORPORATION 1385
engaged in the production and fabrication of electrical wire. During
the year 1944 the Company purchased from points outside the State
of Michigan for use at its Highland Park plant raw materials valued
in excess of $500,000. During the same period the Company shipped
to points outside the State of Michigan finished products valued at
more than $500,000.
During the first 7 months of 1945, the Company's purchase of raw
materials and sales of finished products approximated its purchases
and sales for the corresponding period of 1944.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Foreman's Association of America, Chapter #224, is an unaffiliated
labor organization, admitting to membership supervisory employees
of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its supervisory
employees.
In support of its motion to dismiss the petition, the Company
contends that the supervisory personnel sought to be.represented by
the Union are not "employees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3)
of the Act. The Company has set forth no argument in justification
of its contention which was not fully considered by us in the Packard'
and Soss 2 cases, wherein we held that foremen are "employees." We
find, in accordance with our determinations in those and subsequent
cases,3 that the supervisory personnel involved herein are "employees"
within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act .4
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.5
3 Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L . R. B. 4, and 64 N. L. R. B. 1212.
2 Matter of Boss Manufacturing Company, et at., 56 N . L. R. B. 348.
a See Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation , 65 N. L . R. B. 298 ; Matter of
The B F Goodrich Company, 65 N. L. R. B . 294; Matter of Simmons Company, 65
N L. R. B. 984; Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, Parish & Bingham
Division , 65 N. L R B. 997
4 See N. L. R B. v. Armour and Co , 154 F. (2d) 570 (C. C. A. 10) ; Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corporation v N. L. R. B, 146 F (2d) 833 (C. C. A. 5); N. L. R B. V. Skinner J
Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. ( 2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8).
5 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 40 designation cards, and
that the cards are all dated May 1945.
The record indicates that there are approximately 35 employees in the appropriate
unit.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IC. THE APPROPRLXTE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit comprised of all supervisory employees
of the Company, by whatever title designated, in the production,
inspection, maintenance, and production control department, exclud-
ing assistant superintendents, supervisory employees above the rank of
assistant superintendents, the chief inspector, the manager of the
production control department, and employees engaged in the plant-
protection, general office, engineering, accounting, purchasing, sales,
laboratory, time-study, and personnel departments. The Company
contends that no unit of its supervisory employees is appropriate.
In support of its contention, the Company asserts, in effect, that
(a) as an integral part of management, the employees sought by
the Union cannot be divided from the rest of management; (b) the
Act was not intended to "give bargaining rights to the group and
kind of people which are claiming to be entitled to bargaining rights
in the instant case"; and (c) the unit which the Union seeks is an
arbitrary one, including certain employees who the Company main-
tains are not supervisory employees, and excluding certain supervisory
employees who "have no higher authority * * * take no greater
part in policy making decisions * * * [than] the supervisory
employees [who] the Union propose [s] to include within the unit." c,
However, in keeping with its contention that management is indivis-
ible, it takes no concrete position with respect to inclusions and
exclusions.
Issues (a) and (b) were considered by us in the Young and Good-
rich cases.? We held there, as we do here, that supervisory personnel
are "employees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act;
that as "employees" they are entitled to be placed in some appropriate
unit under Section 9 (h) ; and that the nature of the duties and
responsibilities of supervisory personnel is relevant insofar as it
bears upon the question of proper grouping of these employees for
collective bargaining purposes.
There remains for consideration the disposition of certain em-
ployees hereinafter discussed. Essentially, the Union seeks a unit
O The Union seeks to include within the unit a production follow-up man engaged in
the production control department and two employees of the inspection department
designated by the Company as "special operators," all of whom the Company asserts are
not supervisors . As previously noted, the Union desires to exclude , among others, the
chief inspector and the manager of the production control department, who the Coin-
pany insists have no greater authority than the foreman sought by the Union.
7 See footnote 3, supra.
ESSEX WIRE CORPORATION 1387
of foremen and other supervisory employees below the grade of
assistant superintendents who have supervision over rank and file
production and maintenance employees already bargained for col-
lectively by another labor organization, plus a production control
follow-up man." Consequently, in keeping with past practice wherein
we exclude all supervisors of clerical, technical, and administrative
employees from units of production and maintenance supervisors.
we shall exclude all employees in the plant-protection. general office.
engineering, accounting, purchasing, sales, laboratory, time-study,
and personnel departments.9
Production Control
As previously noted, the Union desires to exclude the manager
of the production control department, contending that he has policy
making powers beyond that possessed by the supervisory employees
below the rank of assistant superintendents; it seeks the inclusion
of a follow-up Ivan. Landis Goatcher, asserting that he is a super-
visory employee. The Company asserts that the product ion control
Manager has no more policy making authority than the employees
sought by the Union, and that the follow-up man is not a supervisory
employee.
The production control department, makes up the production
schedules for the foremen of the various production departments,
determining the type and amount of the wire 'to be produced, and
the route the products are to take in the plant. Altllougli total
capacity production is determined elsewhere, the manager of the
production control department breaks it clown, assigns production
to the various departments, and determines the priority of movement
of products and material. Under these circumstances, we are of the
opinion that, in the performance of his duties, the manager of the
production control department like an assistant superintendent, exer-
cises broader policy making functions than those exercised by the
employees sought by the Union.10 We shall exclude him.
Landis Goatcher, the follow-up man in the production control
department, instructs three follow-up employees in the preparation
eIt appears from the record that foremen, who comprise the bulk of the supervisor.)
personnel below the rank of assistant superintendent , have equal authority . We are of
the opinion , therefore , that they may properly constitute a bargaining unit It Is also
apparent that supervisory employees of the grade of assistant superintendent and above
possess authority beNoud that of the employees sought by the Union We shall exclude
them . See Matter of Simmons Company, supra.
9See Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company , Parish & Bingham Division,
supra.
1U The scope of the authority of the latter employees is confined to their particular
departments , whereas the authority of manager of the production control department is
plant-wide in scope.
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of production schedules. In addition, he makes a daily check of
their work. His conditions of employment are comparable to those
of foremen whom the Union seeks to represent, and he has, on at
least one occasion, effectively recommended that additional employees
be engaged. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that
Goatcher is a supervisory employee, and we shall include him.
Inspection Department
As noted previously, the Union seeks to represent two employees
in this department, John Piatrowski and Stanley Tyska, designated
by the Company as "special operators," contending that these em-
ployees are supervisors; in addition, it seeks the exclusion of the
chief inspector, asserting that his powers are comparable to or in
excess of those of an assistant superintendent. The Company denies
that Piatrowski and Tyska are supervisory employees, and asserts
that the chief inspector exercises no more authority than other
employees sought by the Union.
Other than the fact that he is in charge of an autonomous depart-
ment, and thus reports directly to the plant manager, whereas the
supervisory employees sought by the Union do not," the record does
not support a finding that the chief inspector is on the same level of
responsibility as an assistant superintendent, or higher. The in-
spection department is merely one of a number of departments in
the plant. Furthermore, the rank and file employees engaged therein
are bargained for collectively in the same unit as the production
and maintenance employees. Finally, there is no specific evidence
that the chief inspector exercises greater authority than the super-
visors of other departments. We shall include him.
The inspectors in the inspection department are hourly paid
workers who are eligible for membership in the labor organization
representing the rank and file employees. The two "special assign-
ment" men, Piatrowski and Tyska, are also hourly paid employees,
receiving 8 cents an hour more than the regular inspectors. Their
duties are to check the wire which has been held up by the other
inspectors, and to determine whether or not the material is passable.
Their conditions of employment are similar to those of the rank
and file employees, rather than to those of admittedly supervisory
personnel. Furthermore, they do not attend foremen's meetings, and
there is no evidence that they may effectively recommend the hire,
discharge, or change of status of fellow workers. In view of the
foregoing, we are of the opinion that the "special assignment" men
are not supervisory employees, and we shall exclude them.
Foremen report to the superintendents and assistant superintendents , who are, in
turn, responsible to the plant superintendent.
ESSEX WIRE CORPORATION 1389
We find that all supervisory employees of the Company, by what-
ever title designated , in the production, inspection , maintenance, and
production control departments , including the follow -up man in the
production control department ,12 and the chief inspector , but exclud-
ing the manager of the production control department , the "special
assignment" men in the inspection department , assistant superin-
tendents , supervisory employees above the rank of assistant superin-
tendents , and employees engaged in the plant protection , general office,
engineering , accounting , purchasing, sales, laboratory , time-study
and personnel departments , constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Essex Wire
Corporation, Highland Park, Michigan, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty
(30) days fom the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Re;ni-
lations, among employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
TV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
12 Laudis Goatcher.
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented by Foreman's Association of America, Chapter
#224, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
AIR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of
Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, 1 am constrained
to dissent from the majority opinion in this case.