Owensboro Plating Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 993 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

OWENSBORO PLATING COMPANY 993
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Third
Street plant, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, excluding engineers, engi-
neering technicians, draftsmen, designers, professional employees,
office clerical and office employees, outside mail messengers, armed
guards, executives, monitors, and supervisors within the the meaning
of the Act.
5. Although the Employer requested that the eligibility date be
fixed as of the payroll date nearest to that of the date of the hearing,
it advanced no reason for departure from the Board's usual practice
of determining eligibility to vote by reference to the payroll period
immediately preceding the issuance of the direction of election. We
shall, therefore, adhere to the usual provision for determining voting
eligibility in this proceeding.?
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' American Shuffleboard Company, et al, 85 NLRB 51, 52.
ROBERT C. MATLOCK , D/B/A OWENSBORO PLATING COMPANY and UNITFm
AIITOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
9-RC-1816. March 04,1953
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 Alvin Schwartz, 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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the plating, chemical processing,
and acid cleaning of metals at its plant in Owensboro, Kentucky.
In 1952, the Employer did business with the General Electric Com-
pany, the Westinghouse Electric Company, and the U. E. Anderson
Company, all of whom are conceded to be in interstate commerce, in
the amount of $64,566. In 1952, the Employer did business with
the General Electric Company in the amount of $58,158, and in the
month of January 1953, in the amount of $4,950. The Employer's
business with the General Electric Company is on defense materials.
i The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct
name of the Employer.
103 NLRB No. 97.
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer contends that its business with the General Electric
Company is temporary and dependent on the plans of General Electric,
which expects its business with the Employer to decrease by about
50 percent during 1953. These plans, however, are subject to change.
Because the change in the amount of business the Employer will do
with General Electric in the future is uncertain and speculative, we
base our decision herein upon the Employer's business in 1952.
We find, therefore, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction 2
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 unit of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees is appropriate. There is a question , however,
as to the supervisory status of the Employer's foreman.
The foreman assigns work to the six employees in the plant, and
shifts the employees to different duties as the need arises . He is re-
sponsible for seeing that the employees have the proper materials for
their work, and that the quality of the work is maintained. Less than
10 percent of his time is spent on actual production work. He acts
as assistant to the owner in all matters pertaining to the business and
is in charge of the plant when the owner is absent, which is about 2 to 4
percent of the time.
We find that the foreman exercises responsible direction of em-
ployees, and is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We shall
therefore exclude him from the unit.3
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plant at Owensboro, Kentucky, excluding office clerical,
confidential, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Petitioner contends that certain laid-off employees should
be eligible to vote in the election. The Employer asserts that these
employees have been discharged and will not be recalled to work be-
cause of a decrease in the volume of its business. There reemployment
of these persons depends upon improved business conditions, and it
does not appear that any of these employees will be recalled at any
fixed date in the future.
2 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Westport Moving and Storage Company,
Crate Making Division, 91 NLRB 902; Capitol Trailer Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1066,
Stoll Lumber Company, 96 NLRB 682.
'Brighton Mills, Inc, 97 NLRB 774; Western Equipment Company, 96 NLRB 1376.
TERRI LEE, INC. 995
Accordingly, we find that, as there is no prospect of reemployment
of the employees in question , they are ineligible to participate in the
election 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 C. D. Beck & Company, Inc ., 96 NLRB 1130.
TERRI LEE, INC., TERRI LEE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CONNIE LYNN MFG.
CORP.' and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OUT-OF-TOWN DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, A. F. L.,
PETITIONER. Case No. 21-IBC-2797. March 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 Max Steinfeld, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective barga-.. ning : All production
employees at the Employers' three plants in Apple Valley, California,
but excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, pro-
fessional employees, maintenance men, patternmakers and designers,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.' The parties disagree, however,
as to the inclusion of soldiers and homeworkers in the unit.
Soldiers: The Petitioner would exclude from the unit soldiers who
are enlisted personnel on active duty in the United States Air Force
'At the hearing the Petitioner 's motion to include Connie Lynn Mfg. Corp. as an
employer was granted without objection.
IIn their brief to the Board the Employers withdrew their objection to a multiplant
unit which was raised at the hearing and agreed to the inclusion of all three companies
in a single bargaining unit.
103 NLRB No. 96.