Manning, Bowman & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1306 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

i
In the Matter Of MANNING, BOWMAN & CO., EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3145.-Decided September 10, 1946
Mr. P. G. Hartnett, of Meriden, Conn., for the Employer.
Mr. Francis X. Moore, of Boston, Mass.,'and Mr. Richard N. Rogers,
of Stamford, Conn., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Joseph Bair and Louis Tino, both of Meriden, Conn., for
the Intervenor. -
Mr. Martin T. Camacho, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF` ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Meriden,
Connecticut, on July 26, 1946, before Julius Kirle, Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER -
Manning, Bowman & Co., is a Delaware corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Meriden, Connecticut, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of electrical appliances. It is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Bersted Manufacturing Co., an Ohio corporation
with offices at Fostoria, Ohio. During the 4 months from January
through April, 1946, the Employer manufactured products valued at
approximately $428,000, of which 90 percent. was shipped to points
outside the State of Connecticut. During the same period the Em-
ployer purchased $245,000 worth of raw materials, chiefly steel, copper
and plastics; 75 percent of, which originated outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
70 N. L. R. B., No. 126. .
1306
MANNING, BOWMAN & CO. 1307
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees,of the Em-
ployer.
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local
276, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE 'UNIT
The parties agree that the bargaining, unit should consist of all
the employees of the Employer at its plant in Meriden, Connecticut,
except for time-study men, draftsmen, electrical appliance engineers,
office- clerical employees, executives, foremen, and other supervisory
employees. The parties are, however, in disagreement as to the
status of four leaders' The Petitioner and the Intervenor would.ex-
clude these leaders on the ground that they are supervisory employees.
The Employer contends that these leaders are not supervisors and
urges their inclusion in the proposed unit.
The leaders spend about 20 percent of their time laying out work
for, and supplying parts to, groups of from 18 to 60 employees. The
balance of their time is spent in ordinary production work under
the supervision of the foreman in charge of the department. The
leaders appear to be treated substantially like production workers.
For example, they are classified on the Employer's pay roll as rank
and file employees; they are hourly paid, receiving only 5 cents an
hour more than production workers within their respective depart-
ment; they share in the production workers' incentive plan; and they
enjoy the vacation rights of the rank and file. Although the evidence
on the point is conflicting, we are satisfied that the, leaders have
no power to alter the status of other employees or effectively to recom-
mend such action. We find that the leaders are not supervisory em-
' The leaders are sometimes known as "second hands ," "working foremen" and "sub-
foremen."
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees' within the Board's customary definition. Accordingly, we
shall include them.
We find that all employees of the Employer at its plant in Meriden,
Connecticut, including leaders 2 but excluding time-study men, drafts-
men, electrical engineers, office, clericals, executives, foremen, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of, em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Manning, Bowman & Co.,
Meriden, Connecticut, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and.11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, 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 present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been ditcharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or
not they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL or by United Electrical, Radio &-Machine
Workers of America, Local 276, CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
2 The four leaders in dispute are those respectively in the polishing room, waffle room
assembly , plating room and the combined flatiron , broiler and percolator assemblies