J.v.Reed & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 721 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

J. V. REED & COMPANY 721
J. V. REED & COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF SHEET METAL WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 9-RC-1946. June 24, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Rosemary S.
Macke, hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. 1
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three - member panel [Members Houston , Styles, and
Peterson].
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
employees of the Employer.3
3. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the
grounds that ( 1) no question concerning representation exists
because the Petitioner did not request recognition before filing
its petition , and (2 ) unfair labor practice charges filed against
it by the Petitioner are pending . In the latter connection, the
Employer, asserting that the charges were filed by the Peti-
tioner "in an effort to create a false issue before the em-
ployees," alternatively requests that the processing of the
petition be suspended until final disposition is made of the
unfair labor practice charges.
With respect to the first contention , it is clear from the
Employer's position at the hearing that a question concerning
representation exists which can best be resolved by an elec-
'Prior to the hearing, the Employer requested that the Regional Director make available
to it for inspection at the hearing proof of the Petitioner's compliance with Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h) of the Act. The purpose of this request was to enable the Employer to litigate the
Petitioner's compliance status As the Board has uniformly held that the fact of compliance
by a labor organization which is required to comply with the filing requirements of the Act
is a matter for administrative determination, and is not litigable by the parties, we affirm
the action of the Regional Director in denying the Employer's request and that of the hearing
officer in denying the Employer's motion to adjourn the hearing until the Regional Director
had complied with its request, as renewed at the hearing. W L. Hoge & Co , Incorporated, 103
NLRB 20. For the same reason, we also deny the request of the Employer in its brief that
this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director "and the Company given an opportunity
to inspect .. ,[whatever documents were filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) of the Act] and interrogate the Union Representative concerning them, should there be any
question as to the Union being in full compliance . .." Moreover, we are administratively
satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act.
2In this connection , we have, as requested by the parties, considered as part of the record
the data pertaining to the Employer's business activities contained in the stipulation which
was entered into by the parties after the close of the hearing The Employer concedes that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
3 The Employer's contention that there is insufficient competent evidence in the record to
show that the Petitioner is a labor organization as defined in the Act is plainly without merit
105 NLRB No. 119.
7 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion.4 As for the other contentions, our records show that the
Petitioner has waived the matters contained in its charges as
a basis for objection , to any election that might be directed
herein. And, contrary to the Employer, we do not believe that
the pendency of these charges preclude the possibility of a
"fair election" at this time.5 Accordingly, we find without
merit, and hereby deny, the Employer's motions based on
the aforementioned grounds.
4. The parties agree that a unit of the Employer's production
and maintenance employees , including lithographers , is appro-
priate. There is a question, however, as to the supervisory
status of three group leaders.
It appears that the group leaders devote more than half of
their time to such duties as assigning work to, obtaining
materials for, and instructing groups of approximately 10 to
24 employees; the remainder of their time is spent in manual
work. The work assignments which they make are routine in
nature and do not require the exercise of independent judgment.
They do not have the authority to hire, discharge, or transfer
employees, nor are they empowered to adjust grievances. Their
recommendations are subject to independent investigation by
higher authority. Although earning more than the other produc -
tion and maintenance employees, the group leaders have the
same working hours and enjoy the same benefits. Like the
other employees, they are hourly paid. As it is clear from the
foregoing , and the record as a whole, that the group leaders do
not possess any of the indicia of supervisory authority as enu-
merated in Section 2 (11) of the Act, we find that they are not
supervisors and we shall therefore include them in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at
the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant, including lithogra-
phers and the group leaders, but excluding watchmen, guards,
office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Petitioner would include among those eligible to vote,
and the Employer would exclude, 32 employees who were laid
off by the Employer on May 8, 1953, because of a decrease in
business. The notice advising each of these employees of his
layoff stated, inter alia, that "We wish we could tell you when
we will call you back, but it looks as though this may be a
permanent lay-off." At the hearing, the Employer's president
testified that the laid-off employees would be recalled if
business conditions should warrant an expansion of the working
force, but he was unable to predict when the Employer "would
have orders enough to bring them back." On the basis of the
4 Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29.
5 See Newport News Children, s Dress Company, 80 NLRB 442, Stow and Davis Furniture Co
92 NLRB 80. Edward J. Schlachter Meat Co., Inc., 100 NLRB 1171, upon which the Employer
relies in this connection, is distinguishable from this case on its facts.
ALLISON STEEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 723
foregoing, and the entire record, we find that the employees
in question are ineligible to participate in the election.6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Harris Products Company, 100 NLRB 1036; Robert C. Matlock, d/b/a Owensboro Plating
Company. 103 NLRB 993.
ALLISON STEEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No . 21-RC- 3058 . June 24, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before L. A. Gordon,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
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 employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all machine shop employees
at the Employer's Phoenix, Arizona, plant. The Employer
contends that such unit is inappropriate because of the integra-
tion of its operations and because it comprises only a small
segment of the total number of employees exercising similar
skills. With respect to the first contention the record shows
that the Employer produces structural steel and aluminum
products which are used for the construction of bridges and
other heavy structures. Except for its outside workers who
are engaged in the construction of bridges , there is no history
of collective bargaining at the Employer's plant. The machine
shop is located in a building which is 700 feet long and
approximately 70 feet wide. The front 100 feet of the building
are used as a steel storage area . Immediately back of this
area is the machine shop . There is no partition between these
two areas , and both are under the supervision of the machine
shop foreman. The employees in the machine shop are used in
the steel storage area whenever occasion demands. The
remaining area in the building is occupied by the galvanizing,
plating , welding , and structural department , which is separated
105 NLRB No. 117.