Lancaster Welded Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1478 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since the unfair labor practices found strike at the very heart of the Act, it will
be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner in-
fringing upon rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Ardie Britt,
W. G. Pleasant , and Lillie Jackson , thereby discouraging membership in the above-
named labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By initiating , sponsoring , and promoting an employee representation com-
mittee, and thereafter interfering with its administration , the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Lancaster Welded Products , Inc.' and Shopmen 's Local Union
No. 519 of the International Association of Bridge , Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case
No. 4-RC-4390. March, 20, 1961
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 Milton S. Maclasky, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to 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 Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
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 Employer refused to stipulate at the hearing that the Peti-
tioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. As it
appears that the Petitioner exists for the purpose of bargaining with
employers on behalf of its members concerning terms and conditions
of employment, we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
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.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
130 NLRB No. 145.
LANCASTER WELDED PRODUCTS, INC. 1479,
4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees, including truckdrivers, but excluding employees
engaged in erection work, part-time employees, plant clerical em-
ployees, leadmen, working foremen, and draftsmen. The Employer
contends that the appropriate unit should include erection employees,.
regular part-time employees, plant clerical employees, leadmen, work-
ing foremen, and draftsmen.
The Employer is engaged in the fabrication and erection of struc-
tural steel and miscellaneous ironwork. It has a plant located in Lan-
caster, Pennsylvania, where it fabricates building components. The
components are. then delivered to the jobsite where oftentimes they
are erected by the Employer. The employer also erects building com-
ponents which it has not itself fabricated.
Petitioner would exclude employees Hollinger, Graybill, and Bow-
master from the unit because they are allegedly engaged in erection
work, whereas the Petitioner's jurisdiction is confined to shop em-
ployees. Hollinger and Graybill are classified as welders, Bowmaster
as a crane operator. The Employer does not have any employees who,.
are engaged exclusively in outside erection work. Rather, the same,
employees, including the three mentioned, work interchangeably in
the shop and in the field. In view of this circumstance, we find that
Hollinger, Graybill, and Bowmaster belong in the production and
maintenance unit. The fact that the Petitioner has jurisdiction over
inside employees only is not sufficient reason for excluding the fore-
going employees? We shall include them.
Part-time employees: The Employer has part-time employees who
work on a regular and continuing basis and perform the same duties;
and functions as full-time employees. They enjoy the same wages,.
benefits, and working conditions as the full-time employees and are,
under the same supervision. Petitioner would exclude thesis em-
ployees on the basis that they are employed regularly by other em-
ployers and in such capacity are represented for collective-bargaining-
purposes by other unions. We find that the employees concerned are
regular part-time employees of the Employer. Accordingly, we shall'
include them in the unit.'
Draftsmen: The Employer has full-time and part-time draftsmen
who work under the close supervision of the shop superintendent,
Gamber, who is also a draftsman. They prepare detailed blueprints
from drawings given them by Gamber and several of his professsional
men. The record does not indicate either how much practical ex-
perience or how much technical education an individual must have
before being employed or classified as a draftsman. Neither does it
reveal whether the employee receives any specialized training from
8 Central Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc., et al., 126 NLRB 958.
3 The Great Atlantic 4 Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 603.
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer. We are therefore unable to determine whether they
are technical employees.4 Accordingly, we shall allow the draftsmen
to vote subject to challenge.
Estimator-expediter: This employee takes physical inventory, esti-
mates job costs, prepares purchase orders, inspects material upon re-
ceipt, and keeps inventory records. He is supervised by the shop
superintendent, supervises no one himself, and is not consulted with
respect to company policy. We find that the estimator-expediter is
a plant clerical employee. We shall include him in the unit.'
Leadmnen and working foremen: Petitioner contends that Hamill,
Martin, Stewart, and Weaver should be excluded from the unit as
supervisors. Whereas Weaver is classified as a working foreman, the
others are classified as either welders or layout men. These four indi-
viduals are the most skilled employees of the Employer and act as
leadmen. They spend substantially all their time in production work.
Through their physical efforts, they set the pace of the work by hav-
ing it stockpiled and ready for the other employees to work on. They
also transmit instructions from the admitted supervisors to the men
working with them. They are all hourly paid, receive the same bene-
fits, use the same facilities, and are under the same supervision as
other employees. None of them possesses authority to hire, fire, or
discipline employees; to make any changes in the wages, hours, or
working conditions of other employees; or effectively to recommend
any of the foregoing. We find that Hamill, Martin, Stewart,' and
Weaver' are not supervisors. We shall include them in the unit.
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 at the Employer's Lan-
caster, Pennsylvania, plant, including employees doing erection work,
regular part-time employees, plant clerical employees, truckdrivers,
and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees, technical em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
5. Petitioner contends that Little, Miller, Parsons, Downey, and
Eckman have not been permanently terminated by the Employer, and
should be eligible to vote in the election.
4 See Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722; Allis -Chalmers
Manufacturing Company-Pittsburgh Works, 128 NLRB 87.
5 Hickory Chair Company , 116 NLRB 1105, 1110.
e Minute Maid Corporation, 117 NLRB 68.
7 Thompson, Weinman and Company, et at., 125 NLRB 301.
8 The Employer contends that the Petitioner does not have a sufficient showing of inter-
est to warrant an election in the appropriate unit. The sufficiency of a petitioner 's show-
ing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation . 0. D. Jennings &
Company, 68 NLRB 516. We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner 's showing
of interest is adequate.
9 The Employer moved that the petition be dismissed on the ground that the unit re-
quested was based on extent of organization . In view of the fact that the Board has
ordered an election in a larger unit than that requested, we deny the motion.
GARDNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1481
Paul Miller was a tractor-trailer driver for the Employer. The
Employer has discontinued its tractor-trailer operations for economic
reasons and has advertised this equipment for sale in the newspapers.
Miller was told at the time of his layoff that he had no reasonable ex-
pectancy of reemployment and, in fact, the Employer has hired no
drivers since terminating him.
Floyd Little was laid off on October 5, 1960, after 3 months of work
on a temporary basis. Little was told at the outset of his employment
.that he was being hired on a part-time basis, and was later told at
the time of his layoff that there was no reasonable expectancy of his
being reemployed in the foreseeable future. In fact, the Employer has
no order on its books that will require any expansion of its work force
in the near future. -
Parsons, Downey, and Eckman worked in the Employer's orna-
mental iron department. For economic reasons, the Employer
discontinued this department, advertised the business for sale in the
newspapers, and, in fact, sold it to Parsons. The Employer has no
intention of going back into the ornamental iron business and has not
attempted to hire any employees in place of Parsons, Downer, and
Eckman.
We find that all of the above individuals have been permanently
laid off or terminated by the Employer and have no reasonable ex-
pectancy of reemployment in the foreseeable future. Therefore, they
are ineligible to vote in the election.'°
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
10 American:-Marietta Company, 121 NLRB 912.
Gardner Construction Company and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 13. Case No. 27-CA-847 (formerly Case
No. 30-CA-817) . March 21, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 25, 1961, Trial Examiner Howard.Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
1 The Respondent also requested oral argument . As the record, exceptions , and brief
adequately present the issues and positions of the parties , this request is denied.
130 NLRB No. 149.