Knox Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 789 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

KNOX CORPORATION 789
Accordingly we find that the following employees constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production employees in the manufacturing division, and
all maintenance and plant clerical employees, at the Employer's
Los Angeles, California, plant, including employees whomanu-
facture magnesium beams for aircraft, shipping and receiving
clerks at all three warehouses, storeroom clerks in both
storerooms, and material control employees,5 but excluding
outside employees, employees in the fabricating division,
truckdrivers and helpers, warehousemen who load and unload
trucks, office clerical employees,6 professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Interstate Machinery Co., 66 NLRB 1336; Heintz Manufacturing Co., 100 NLRB 1521.
6As the Petitioner does not regard as plant clericals the employees serving as stenog-
raphers to foremen and Government inspectors, and as no other position is taken with
respect to these employees by the Employer or the AFL unions,, we exclude them as office
clerical employees.
KNOX CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2165. May
5, 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 Frank E.
Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing 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 mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
1 The Employer 's contention that the Petitioner is not a labor organization has no merit.
The record shows that the Petitioner has officers and a constitution and is organized for
purposes of collective bargaining with employers concerning the wages, hours, and working
conditions of employees. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 96 NLRB 1052.
104 NLRB No. 96.
283230 0 - 54 - 51
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.2
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and mainte-
nance employees of the Employer, including truckdrivers and
garagemen. The Employer does not contest the scope of the
unit, but is in disagreement with the Petitioner respecting the
inclusion or exclusion of certain classifications of employees
which are discussed below:
The assistant to the time-study man (Flanders) is an
hourly paid employee engaged in routine mechanical functions
of timing various production operations and accumulating
information for the time-study engineer. He does not partici-
pate in the analysis of such information for the purposes of
setting wage rates, and makes no findings or recommendations
thereon, all of which functions are performed solely by the
time-study engineer. The job requires no professional educa-
tion, experience, or training. Accordingly, we find that this
employee is essentially a plant clerical, and shall therefore
include him.'
The clerk in the plant office (Bentley) is an hourly paid
employee who performs clerical duties primarily relating to
production operations, e.g., work-order sheets and inventories.
She is physically located away from the Employer's general
offices, which are housed in a different building. While she is
occasionally assigned duties by the plant superintendent, such
work does not involve confidential matters pertaining to the
Employer's labor or personnel relations. The clerk in the
maintenance shop office (Hunt) is hourly paid and engaged in
duties similar to those of the plant office clerk, described
above. We find that both these employees are plant clericals,
and shall therefore include them.
The dispatcher (Appling) is an hourly paid employee who
delivers to the truckdrivers their shipping papers, dispatches
the trucks, and keeps track of the location of truck trailers.
The instructions he transmits to the truckdrivers originate
with the loading foreman, who determines the trip assignments
of the drivers. Another dispatcher (Twilly), who is salaried,
is excluded by agreement of the parties because he has "utility"
supervisory powers. We find that Appling is not a supervisor
and shall include him.4
2On March 4, 1953 , the parties executed a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion, which was approved by the Regional Director on March 6, 1953. On March 11, 1953,
the Petitioner requested leave to withdraw from the stipulation . On the same day the Regional
Director withdrew his approval of the stipulation and sent a telegram to the Employer
notifying it of the same . The Employer does not deny receiving this telegram . The Employer
moves to dismiss the petition, or alternatively , that the election be directed entirely in ac-
cordance with the terms of the stipulation . The ground for its motion is that the Regional
Director has no authority to grant the Petitioner 's request , which authority it alleges was
vested solely in the Board . We hereby deny the Employer 's motion. The stipulation specifi-
cally provided that it was subject to the approval of the Regional Director. The Regional
Director thus having the authority to approve, inherently had the power to withdraw such
approval.
3 See, e .g., American & Efird Mills, Inc., 101 NLRB No. 23.
4See The Englander Company, 100 NLRB 164.
KNOX CORPORATION 791
The material checker in the loading department (Johnson) is
hourly paid. He works as part of a loading crew which picks up
material for the loading dock and assembles "units." As
checker, he tallies pieces against the loading manifest and
instructs the crew when to stop loading. There are two other
employees in the same classification whom the parties agreed
to include; their functions and authority are distinguishable
from those of Johnson only in that they pick up material from
different locations. We find that Johnson is not a supervisor
and shall include him.
The leaderman in the carpenter shop (Young) is hourly paid
and works with a crew of 4 or 5 carpenters. He transmits to
the crew instructions given by the foreman, who determines
the job assignments of each carpenter. He has authority to
report on the inefficiency of any carpenter in the crew to the
foreman, who independently investigates. His authority and
conditions of employment are identical with those of other
leadermen in the, plant whom the parties agreed to include.
The mechanic in the repair shop (Hendrix), an hourly paid
employee, is also a leaderman in this shop. He works with or
without helpers. His authority is limited to the transmission
of instructions of the foreman, who is responsible for selecting
the helpers of the mechanic and for their job assignments.
Accordingly, we find that these 2 individuals in question are not
supervisors, and we shall include them.$
There are three watchmen in question who spend all their
time in guard functions. In accordance with Board policy, we
shall exclude them.6
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and
maintenance employees of the Employer at its Thomson,
Georgia, plant, including truckdrivers, garagemen , over-the-
road drivers,? Inspector Denham,' the assistant to the time-
study man (Flanders), the plant clerks (Bentley and Hunt),
the dispatcher (Appling), the material checker in the loading
department (Johnson), the leaderman in the carpenter shop
(Young), and the mechanic in the repair shop (Hunt), but
excluding Dispatcher Twilly, the watchmen, Inspectors Perdue,
Anderson, and Gaines,9 and supervisors as defined in the
Act .1°
5. The determination of representatives:
The parties are in dispute as to the voting eligibility of
certain individuals laid off by the Employer on December 2Z,
1952, who have not been reemployed since. These individuals
5See The Englander Company, ibid.
'See C. V. Hill & Company, Inc., 76 NLRB 158.
7 By agreement.
SBy agreement.
9 By agreement.
10 The parties agreed to exclude Howard Farr.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do not appear on the current payroll; all but one 11 are asserted
by the Employer to have been permanently separated from
employment. Testimony on behalf of the Employer indicates
that the laid-off employees in dispute fall into two categories:
(1) Those offered reemployment, which they refused, and (2)
those who had been employed in the molding shop which was
discontinued at the plant in question and moved to another
city. The Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges
alleging that these laid-off employees were discriminatorily
discharged,12 but in respect to the instant proceeding waived
the allegations contained in the charge. In accordance with our
usual procedure, while this unfair labor practice charge is
pending, we hereby instruct the Regional Director to challenge
and segregate the ballots of the laid-off employees in question.
Their ballots will not be counted unless determinative of the
results of the election. In such event, the final disposition of
this case will await the outcome of the unfair labor practice
proceeding under investigation. By allowing these persons to
vote, subject to challenge, we are not to be taken as having
passed in any way on the issues involved in the complaint
case.19
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
11 Judson Magahee, whom the Employer expects to re-call when a vacancy in a certain
department arises. Accordingly, we find that Magahee has a reasonable expectancy of
reemployment and is therefore eligible to vote.
12 Case No . 10- CA- 1638.
1sSee Falls City Creamery Co., 95 NLRB 1425.
NATIONAL FIREWORKS ORDNANCE CORPORATION and
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS
OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL 529, Petitioner
NATIONAL FIREWORKS ORDNANCE CORPORATION and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUF F EURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL 878, Petitioner
NATIONAL FIREWORKS ORDNANCE CORPORATION and
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PA-
PERHANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1636, AFL, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 15-RC-879, 15-RC-880, and 15-RC-891. May
5, 1953
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before William W. Fox, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
104 NLRB No. 93.