Gen Pro, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 12 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No target date has been set for the installation of the fifth and sixth
ovens.
Upon the entire record in the case, we believe that the Employer's
present employees constitute a substantial and representative segment
of those to be employed for a reasonable time in the future. We,
therefore, find no compelling reason to delay the granting to the
employees of an opportunity to choose a bargaining representative.
Accordingly, we shall direct an immediate election.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
6 See Independent Lock Company of Alabama, 106 NLRB 1136, and cases cited therein ;
General Electric Company, 106 NLRB 364
GEN PRO , INC. and STOVE MOUNTERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 35-RC-1032. September
22, 1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John Hendrickson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of-
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree that a production and maintenance unit is
appropriate. However, the parties could not agree as to whether cer-
tain categories of employees should be included in such a unit.
a. The shipping clerk
The Employer contends that the shipping clerk is an office clerical'
employee and should, therefore, be excluded from the unit. This em-
ployee spends about 60 percent of his time checking on whether the
proper materials are taken from storage and loaded on trucks for
shipment. On occasion he actually engages in the manual labor inci-
dent to such work. He has a desk in the plant storage area where he
110 NLRB No. 7.
GEN PRO, INC. 13
spends about 40 percent of his time typing up bills of lading. This
work takes him into the company office 4 or 5 times a day. In view
of the foregoing, we find that the shipping clerk is essentially a plant
clerical and shall, accordingly, include him in the unit?
b. Inspector-receiving clerk
The Employer requests the Board to determine whether or not the
inspector-receiving clerk should be included-, This employee works
in the plant in the receiving area. His work is principally manual
and involves the inspection and the resulting acceptance or rejection
of all material received by the plant. Accordingly, we shall include
him in the unit.2
c. Watchmen
There are 5 employees classified as watchmen, whom the Employer
would exclude as guards. These employees work principally at night
and on weekends, with 2 watchmen usually on duty at a time. Watch-
men Hammat, Jackman, and Lett while on duty make the rounds of
the plant every hour and punch the.key clock. They carry a set of
keys to the -plant and are responsible for preventing unauthorized
persons from entering the plant. Accordingly, we find that these
employees are guards and shall exclude them.3 Cole and Scheffer,
who are also classified as watchmen, are on duty only when one of the
other guards is present. They spend all of their time doing mainte-
nance or production work. It was stated in the record that these two
employees would perform guard duties only if the regular watchmen
happened to be absent. However, that situation has never arisen.
We find, in view of the foregoing, that Cole and Scheffer are not
guards and shall include them in the unit 4
d. Lead operators
The Employer, over the objection of the Petitioner, would exclude
from the unit the five lead operators on the ground that they are super-
visors. The parties agree that, aside from the plant manager who is
admittedly a supervisor and the lead operators whose status is here in
dispute, there are no other employees who exercise supervisory au-
thority over the approximately 40 production and maintenance
workers.
The lead operators spend from 25 to 60 percent of their time doing
actual production work. However, each of them with the exception of
1 Wilson Athletic Goods Manufacturing Co., Inc., 95 NLRB 892, 894.
2 Standard Coil Company, 98 NLRB 1296 ; General Warehousemen and Employees Union,L
.cat 636 , et al., 100 NLRB 856, 857-858
3 Tennessee Knitting Mills, Inc , 109 NLRB 628.
4 E. I Dupont De Nemours d Company, 89 NL11B 119, 122.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lead Operator Allen, has from 4 to 14 employees working directly
under him. The lead operators assign jobs to, instruct and responsi-
bly direct the work of, these employees. Further, if an employee has a
complaint about working conditions, he will take it to his lead opera-
tor who, if the matter involved is relatively simple, will adjust the
grievance. The lead operators are paid 10 cents more than the highest
paid employees in their group.
Lead Operator Allen has no special crew assigned to him but works
throughout the plant whenever he is needed. He can assign work to
the other lead operators and instruct them on what to do and how it
should be done. Allen .also is classified as "assist to supervision" in
which capacity he aids the plant manager. Allen is paid 10 cents an
hour more than the other lead operators.
In view of the foregoing we find that the lead operators, including
Allen, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude
them from the unit.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and
maintenance employees including the shipping clerk and inspector
employed at the Employer's Shelbyville, Indiana, plant, but excluding
office clerical employees, all guards, professional employees, lead opera-
tors, and other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
5 Oil City Iron Works, 92 NLRB 1293, 1294.
RICIIARDS OF BOSTON, INC. D/B/A RICHARDS RED CROSS SHOE STORE and
RETAIL SHOE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 173, NEW ENGLAND JOINT
BOARD, RETAIL AND WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, C. I. Oy.
PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-3477. September V, 1954
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board
on May 14, 1954, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 4,
1954, under the supervision of the Regional Director for the First
Region, among the employees in the unit found to be appropriate. At
the close of the election a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties.
The tally shows that 15 ballots were cast, of which 6 were for the Peti-
110 NLRB No. 5.