Puerto Rico Glass Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1347 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

PUERTO RICO GLASS CORPORATION 1347
PUERTO RICO GLASS CORPORATION 1 and UNION DE En1PLEADOS DE SUPER-
VISION DE LA FABRICA DE CRISTAL, IND., PETITIONER . Case No.
241-RC-444. December 23, 1952
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 Roy J. Cohen, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.2
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 Petitioner seeks a unit comprised of the batch foreman, four
packing shift foremen, quality inspector, four lynch machine shift
foremen, working foreman, job change crew leader, two carton shift
foremen, three ACL shift foremen, yard and tank repair foreman,
maintenance foreman, and electrician foreman at the Employer's
plant .3 The Employer contends that the unit is inappropriate be-
cause all of the above employees are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act, and, in any event, that any of the above employees who are
not supervisors should be included in the existing production and
maintenance unit, from which they are presently excluded, rather
than in a separate unit. The representative of the production and
maintenance unit' appeared at the hearing only for the purpose of
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
z The Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. It appears from the record that the Petitioner is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act , and we so find.
3 In its petition the Petitioner sought a number of other job categories in addition to those
listed above in the text. The parties stipulated , and we find , that the employees in these
additional categories are supervisors, except for one, the bottle designer , whom they agreed
to exclude from the unit on other grounds . None of these employees will therefore be
included in the unit.
4 Union de Empleados de la Industria de Cristal , Local No. 1792 , Amalgamated Trade
Union Council ILA-AFL, currently represents the production and maintenance unit and
has a collective bargaining agreement with the Employer expiring January 5 , 1953, covering
the unit. This union was certified on May 14, 1951, pursuant to a consent election (Case
No. 24-RC-188, not reported in the printed volumes of Board decisions).
101 NLRB No. 191.
242305- -53---86
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disclaiming any interest in representing the employees sought by the
Petitioner, and did not intervene in the proceeding.b
We find that the batch foreman, packing shift foremen, lynch ma-
chine shift foremen, carton shift foremen, ACL shift foremen, yard
and tank repair foreman, maintenance foreman, and electrician fore-
man are all supervisors within the meaning of the Act. All of them
responsibly direct the work of employees under them. In addition,
they effectively recommend the retention, transfer, or discharge of
probationary employees; they have authority to approve or refuse
requests for leaves of absence and vacation; they have authority, which
they exercise, to transfer, and effectively to recommend permanent
promotions, and other changes in the status of the employees within
their departments.
There remains for consideration the status of the quality inspector,
working foreman in the mould shop, and job change crew leader. The
quality inspector's job is to inspect random samples of bottles produced
by the various machines in the production department. He reports
defects to the glass technologist, who then orders appropriate correc-
tive action. He infrequently acts as substitute for the packing shift
foremen, whom we have found to be supervisors. However, his exer-
cise of the functions of a supervisor is so sporadic as not to be sufficient,
in our opinion, to constitute the quality inspector a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act.6
The working foreman in the mould shop is responsible to the mould
shop supervisor, who supervises all the employees in the mould shop.
The number of employees in that shop varies from 13 to 16. The work-
ing foreman has more skill and experience than any of the other
employees in the shop. He trains new employees and helps less skilled
employees with difficult work. He relays orders to the other employees
from the mould shop supervisor, but does not responsibly direct their
work. During a substantial part of his time he does work similar to
that of the other employees in the mould shop. He does not have the
power to take action, or make recommendations, affecting the status
of other employees. Although he is in charge of the department on
infrequent occasions when the supervisor is absent, we find that this
working foreman is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.,
The job change crew leader is responsible to the production super-
intendent. At the time of the hearing, there was only one other em-
ployee in his department and there have never been more than three
6 There is also a unit of clerical employees at the Employer's plant currently represented
by the Union de Empleados de Oflcina Independiente de Puerto Rico Glass Corporation.
This union did not appear at the hearing, nor did it at any time express an interest in the
proceedings.
Forney Engineering Company, 88 NLRB 204.
Forney Engineering Company, supra.
STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED 1349
other employees in it. Most of his work is manual . At present the
other employee in the department has a higher hourly pay rate and
more experience than the job change crew leader. The job change
crew leader receives detailed orders from the production superinten-
dent, which he transmits to the other employee in the department. He
has no authority to take action,, or make recommendations , affecting
the status of other employees. We find that he is not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act.8
The skills, interests, and working conditions of the foregoing three
employees are substantially similar to those of the employees in the
production and maintenance unit. However, as the representative of
the production and maintenance unit, from which they were excluded,
does not desire to represent them, and no other union except the
Petitioner seeks to represent them, we find, that a unit limited to the
quality inspector, working foreman in the mould shop, and the job
change crew leader at the Employer's plant at Guaynabo, Puerto Rico,
is an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.e
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' The Fli-Back Company, et al., 85 NLRB 959.
• Jordan Marsh Company, 85 NLRB 1503.
STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED , AND ITS SIIBSIDIARY , THE FLEISaH-
MANN DISTILLING CORPORATION and BREWERY WORKERS' INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 42, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No.
2-RC-4W. December 03,19529
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National-Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman A. Cole, 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 Houston and Murdock].
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.
101 NLRB No. 216.