Ranco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 425 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of RANCO, INC. and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.
Case-No., 9-C-1938.-Decided July-20,1944
Mr. John W. Coddaire, Jr., for the Board.
Vorys, Sater; Seymour c Pease, by Mr. Webb I. Vorys'and Mr. Carl
H. Tangeman, and Mr. Roy E. Raney, of Columbus, Ohio, for the
respondent.
Mr. Lewis Strickland, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Union.
Mr. Daniel E. Bevis, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Independent.
Mr. Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, of counsel to the Board. -
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0.,1 herein called
the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,- herein called the
Board, by its Acting Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cin-
cinnati, Ohio), issued its complaint dated December 28, 1943, 'against
Ranco, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), and (3) and Section- 2 (6) and (7) of the-National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the
respondent, the Union, and Ranco Employees Independent Union,
herein called the' Independent, a labor organization alleged in - the
complaint to' be company-dominated.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that, since in and about January 1943, the respondent, by
its officers, agents, and employees, has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights,gu'aranteed inSec-
i The name of the Union appears herein as amended at the hearing -
57 N. L. R. B., No. 82.
425
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 7 'of the Act by (a) permitting and assisting in the circulation,
in its plant during working hours, 'of a petition showing employees
-for' or against the Union ;' ( b) signing 'and -searching for said peti-
tion when it became lost in the course of its circulation ; ( c) permit-
ting literature derogatory to the Union to be distributed and posted
in the. plant during - working hours ; ' ( d) urging, persuading, or
warning its employees to refrain from joining or retaining member-
ship in the Union; ( e) vilifying and disparaging the, Union and its
,leaders; ( f) removing a union button from the clothing of an em-
ployee; ( g)' permitting the Independent to distribute leaflets' or
other literature on its property ; (h) permitting the circulation of a
petition indicating that the signer's thereof favored a wage increase
'rather than membership in the Union ; and (i) requesting an employee
,to refrain from wearing a headgear with printing thereon favorable
to the Union. The complaint further illleged that the respondent
discharged Charles Welch 'on or about August 3, '1943 , and, discharged
or laid off John Bova on or about August 14, 1943, and thereafter
ref used- to reinstate them because of their membership in, and activity
,on_ behalf of, the Union and because of their concerted activities with
other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection . In addition , the complaint alleged that,
'in August 1943, the respondent , by its officers , agents, and employees,
initiated , assisted , supported ,, and promoted the' Independent, and
since August 1943, to date , has assisted , dominated , contributed to
the support of, and interfered with the , administration of, the-Inde-
pendent by ( a) holding membership in the Independent ; ( b) attend-
ing meetings of the Independent ; ( c) permitting the Independent to
solicit members in the plant during working hours ; (d) permitting the
Independent to post notices of its meetings , in the plant on the bulle-
tin boards of the respondent ; ( e) permitting the Independent to dis-
tribute leaflets and literature on its property , while denying the same
privilege to the Union ; ' (f) ' vilifying and 'disparaging the Union and
making derogatory statements about the Union; and ( g),inquiring
of its employees with regard to the business of the Independent.
Prior to the hearing, the respondent filed with the Acting , Regional
Director of the Ninth Region a motion for a bill of particulars.2 On
January 7, 1944, the Acting Regional Director entered an order deny-
ing the respondent 's ' motion without prejudice to its right ' to renew
the motion at the hearing. On or about January 10 , 1944, the respond-
ent filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint as to
the nature of its business but denying that it had committed, any
unfair labor practice. ,
The substance , of the motion was that the complaint be made 'more definite and certain
by flaming the officers , agents, and employees through whose acts the respondent is alleged
to have-held membership in, and attended the meetings of, the Independent.
RANCO, INC. 427
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from January 13 to January
20, 1944, inclusive, at Columbus, Ohio, before John IT. Eadie, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the, Chief Trial Examiner. At the
opening of the hearing the Independent moved to intervene in the -
proceeding. The motion was granted without objection. The Board, -
the respondent, and the Independent were represented by counsel and,
the Union by its representative. All parties participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard; to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and .to -introduce evidence bearing on the issues .was af-
forded all parties. Also, at the commencement of the hearing, the,
respondent renewed its motion for a bill of particulars. The motion
was granted. At the close of. the introduction of evidence ,by the
Board, and again at the close of the, hearing, the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint 'as a whole and'as to specified parts thereof
for lack of proof. Ruling thereon was reserved by the Trial Exam-
iner, who denied, the, motions in his Intermediate Report. At the
conclusion of all testimony, counsel. for the Board moved to,amend the
complaint to conform to the proof. The same motion was made by
counsel for the respondent with respect' to the respondent's answer.
The motions were granted without objection. During the course of
the hearing, 'the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence., The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner made during the course of the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. After the conclusion of the hearing, the
respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
On April 6, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
pnd t,th
copies of which
e Independent. were found 'that
upon
the -respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and
recommended that, the respondent cease' and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.'
On May 18, 1944, the respondent filed with the Board its exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions.
Pursuant to notice and at the request of the respondent, a hearing
was held, before the, Board at Washington, D. C., on June 6, 1944, for
the purpose of oral argument. The respondent was represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing; the Union and the Independ-,
ent-did not appear. , ' , -
The Board -has 'considered the respondent's exceptions to the In-
termediate Report and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and,
insofar as the exceptions are consistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, finds 'them to have merit.
-428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. , TIIE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT
The respondent, an Ohio corporation, with its office and main plant
located at,.No. -601 West "Fifth Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, herein re-
ferred to as the plant,3 is engaged in the manufacture and sale of air-
craft instruments, binoculars, and refrigeration control and thermo
,switches. Approximately 99 percent of the respondent's business is
in connection with the war effort and its sales are in excess-of $1,000,000
annually. The principal raw materials used by the respondent are
glass, steel, brass, berylleum, copper, and other metals . There-,
spondent purchases from 60 to 70 percent of these raw materials out'
side the State of Ohio, and it ships from 60 to 70 percent of its finished
products to points outside the State of Ohio. During peak production
periods the respondent,employs approximately 2,400 employees.-
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. - . "
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automoble, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, is a' labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
,Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees •o,f the
respondent.
Ranco Employees Independent Union is an unaffiliated labor or-
ganization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
410
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The status of alleged supervisory employees
The basic question to be determined in order to resolve the issues
concerning interference, restraint, and coercion on the part of the,re-
spondent and domination of the Independent by the respondent is the
alleged supervisory status of. two classes of employees, namely, group
leaders and set-up men. We ' shall therefore determine their status
before considering the allegations concerning the specific unfair labor
practices. The Trial Examiner found that.group leaders and set-up
men were, supervisory employees and that they were acting with the,
support and approval of. management.. ; He, concluded that the re-
spondent was responsible for their acts and statements. We do not
concur.
'The respondent operates another plant in Columbus , Ohio , located at No 2400 North
High Street . This proceeding is concerned only with the main plant
RANCO, INC. 429
Set-up men, as the title implies, tool and set machines for operation,
in accordance with blueprint specifications. They devote from 50 to
70 percent of their time to this task. After running experimental
samples and reaching a satisfactory result, the set-up man instructs
the operator and turns the machine over to him. When not engaged
in setting up machines or obtaining supplies for the operators, the
set-up men either watch the operators and check the machines or oper-
ate machines alongside other operators. The duties of group leaders
are comparable to those of set-up men. - Group leaders give work to
employees in the production or inspection line, instruct employees in
their duties, ascertain whether they are supplied with work,, obtain
supplies and equipment for employees,'and at times engage in produc-
tion work alongside ordinary employees.
The record clearly establishes that,neither group leaders nor set-up
men have power to hire, demote, or discharge employees, to grant
raises or leaves of absence, or to recommend such action. Their au-
thority in this regard is limited to reporting to their superiors, either
foremen or assistant foremen, the inefficiency of employees within
their groups. The number of employees assigned to them varies from
2 to about 12 or 13. The set-up men and group leaders, like produc-
tion and maintenance employees, are paid on an hourly basis and re-
ceive compensation for overtime work. Being highly skilled, set-up
men and group leaders receive higher rates of pay than the employees
in their groups. Foremen and, assistant foremen, who admittedly
occupy a supervisory status, are paid on a salary basis and are not
compensated for overtime work. Group leaders and set-up men do
not attend meetings of,the respondent's supervisory personnel. Al-
though some employees testified that they regarded set-up men and
group leaders as their "bosses," the evidence establishes, in our opinion,
that group leaders and set-up men perform no supervisory functions,
being merely highly skilled employees, and are not regarded as super-
visors by the management, by the other employees, or by themselves.
Set-up men and group leaders were eligible to membership in both
the Independent and the Union; several joined either one or the other
organization. At the hearing, Lewis Strickland, the Union's Inter-
national Representative, admitted that group leaders and job-setters
were members of the Union and stated that their continued eligibility
to membership was "a matter for me to determine later on." In view
of all the evidence,,we find that group leaders and set-up men were not
supervisory employees. We further find that the record fails to estab-
lish that they were acting with the support and approval of the re-
spondent. We conclude that the respondent is not liable for'their
activities and statements.
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Sequence of events ,
The respondent commenced its operations ' in 1914 , and "expanded
gradually until , by 1941 , it had 650,employees engaged in the manu-
facture of diversified electrical equipment. In 1941 , the respondent
transferred its peace-time operations to another plant and'converted
its main plant to the production of binoculars and certain precision
instruments ' for the U. S. Army 'and Navy. Its pay roll thereafter
expanded rapidly, attaining 'a maximum at the peak of production
of 2,400-employees. The Union commenced its organizational activi-
ties at the, respondent 's main plant in June 1942, shortly after the
plant 's conversion to the manufacture of war products . The extent
of the organizational efforts of the Union , in 1942, is not shown by the
record, aside from the fact that union literature was distributed at
the gates of the plant .. There is no contention or evidence that the
respondent interfered in any way with these activities.
In January 1943, the respondent determined to reorganike its gen-
eral maintenance department and to replace the foreman then in
charge. The maintenance department had theretofore been loosely
organized with its members roaming at large throughout the plant,
subject to the call of any employee . Ralph Hunt, the factory, man- -
ager, accordingly requested Jack Matthaes, at that time maintenance
foreman in the binocular department, to make an operational study
of the general maintenance department and its employees ' and to sub-
mit his suggestions for improving maintenance service together with
a detailed report-on its personnel . Matthaes was also to advise Hunt
whether he felt capable of assuming the position of general foreman
in charge of all plant maintenance . About January ' 11 or 12, 1943,
Matthaes reported the results of his investigation to Hunt, finding
that "the department as a whole was operating rather loosely," that
its employees were wasting much time, and that two employees,
Charles F. Welch and Howard L. Smith, were particularly inclined -
to waste time. Although Smith was employed in the boiler room,
he worked 2 days each week in the maintenance department. Ac-
cording to Matthaes , whenever Smith was assigned to the boiler room,
he was supposed to remain there continuously during his working
hours, but Matthaes found, during the course of his investigation, that
Smith was "out-of the boiler room lots of the time" and that Welch
was "doing lots of talking with the operators . . . and very little
work ." , When Matthaes reported his general findings to Hunt, to-
gether with his specific observations as to Welch and Smith, Hunt
told Matthaes to report whether the two employees thereafter con-
tinued to neglect their duties and,-if they did, that Hunt would speak
to them.
RANCO, INC. 431
At this time, Matthaes also recommended ,a plan of reorganization
for the department, which Hunt adopted. Under the new system,
requests for the services of repairmen were.filed with the maintenance
department by the foremen of the various operational departments
and the maintenance crew was assigned to specific jobs in accordance
with priority accorded the work, orders by maintenance supervisors.
Thereafter, no operator could directly request a member of the main-
tenance department to perform repairs but instead was required 'to file
a request with his foreman who processed the work order. With,the
approval of the reorganization plan,. Matthaes and Ernest Spencer
were appointed general foreman and assistant foreman, respectively,
of the general maintenance department. ' Shortly thereafter, Hunt
addressed the maintenance department employees at a group meeting,
introduced the new foremen, explained the new work order system,
and warned the employees to remain on the jobs to which they were
assigned in the future.
Matthaes testified that,on the morning of January 18, 043, he found
Welch and employee Young 4 reading a newspaper, during working
hours and that he accordingly "decided that right,then was the time
we would get this thing settled . . . [Welch] was going to stay
on the job that he was sent to do, and report back to Spencer." Ac-
cording to Matthaes, he requested Hunt to speak with Welch and also
with Smith, since "the topic of discussion was in common for' the
two men . . . who . . . had been off the job more than any
of the rest." 5 Welch, Smith, Matthaes, and Spencer assembled in
Hunt's office. Hunt opened the interview by saying, "You fellows
know what you are here for"; when Smith denied such knowledge,
Hunt stated, "You fellows know what you are doing out in the shop
and you have got to cut it out." Pressed further for explanation,
Hunt said, "You fellows know and I don't have to go into that."
Upon further questioning by Welch and Smith, Hunt replied that they
"would have'to stop running around over the shop" and that if they,
were found "off the job" again, they would be discharged. Welch
testified that, during the conference, Hunt said, "I know you [Welch]
belong to the Union." The Trial Examiner did not credit Welch's
Young was employed in another department over which Matthaes had no authority.
Welch testified, and the Trial Examiner found, that Hunt's interview with Welch and
Smith was occasioned by the following incident ' when Welch went 'into the pressroom in
the course of his duties about January 18, employee Young asked Welch to check his press
and Welch explained the new procedure for requesting repairs Young testified that such a
conversation had "once" occurred, but did not specify the date. Neither was questioned
with regard to whether they were reading a newspaper that morning. Although the testi-
mony of these witnesses does not negate the possibility that both the incident testified to
by Welch and that testified to by Matthaes in fact occurred, we credit Matthaes' testimony
and accordingly find that the conference with Hunt was occasioned by the fact that
Matthaes had discovered Welch and Young reading a newspaper during working hours on
January 18, 1943.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony in this regard since Hunt, Matthaes, Spencer, and Smith
denied that the Union was mentioned during the conference.° How-
ever, the Trial Examiner found that the purpose of Hunt's interview
with Smith and Welch was to warn them concerning their union ac-
tivities in the plant and that his statements, set forth above,-consti-
tuted interference, restraint, and coercion of the employees in the
exercise of their rights, guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. We
do not agree. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we find Matthaes'
testimony to be credible and Welch's testimony to the contrary, un-
worthy of credence.' 'Moreover; the record does not establish that at
this time, January 1-18, 1943, either Welch or Smith, was especially
active in the Union, although both were wearing union buttons when
they were called into Hunt's office. Welch testified that he joined the
Union "when the rest of the fellows were joining" and that he handed
out cards and buttons "to anyone there that wanted to join the union."
He also testified that he "took over" the position'of steward "in the
first part of January, and in the latter part of January they gave me
a steward's button." Smith testified that he joined the Union "some-
time the last of January" 1943. The record does not establish that
he was otherwise active in the Union. As hereinafter indicated, there
Is ample evidence, which we credit, that Welch wasted much of his
time in talking and "visiting" with other employees. We accordingly
find that the purpose of the interview was to reprimand Welch and
Smith for wasting time and that Hunt's and Matthaes' statements did
not infringe upon the employees' rights under the'Act.
The' Trial Examiner further found that after the conference in
Hunt's office, Smith, who theretofore had divided his time between
maintenance work and firing a boiler, was taken out of the mainte-
nance department and confined to the boiler room, thereby losing
overtime and Sunday work. - The Trial Examiner concluded 'that
such action by the respondent was discriminatory. We are unable
to agree with this conclusion. In our opinion, the record does not
establish conclusively that Smith's status was changed after the
interview with Hunt. Assuming arguendo, however, that following
the conference with Hunt, Smith was deprived of his overtime and
Sunday work, we find that such deprivation was a deserved disci-
plinary measure for wasting time and not discriminatory within the
meaning of the Act. ,
6 \Iatthaes and Hunt testified that the latter stressed the fact that welch and Smith were
not "on the job" and warned them that, if they were "found any more off the job," they
would be "fired." Welch testified, without contradiction, that a few days after the above
conversation in Hunt ' s office , bfatthaes told him, "I know you belong to the union . I don't
care whether you belong to a union or not, but I don't see why you want the union in here
or anybody does . . . I am not against anybody belonging to the union , but I want you
to stay on the job " Upon being then asked by welch if he had not "always done that,"
Matthaes replied in the affirmative but further stated , "You want to be careful and watch
your step and go ahead and everything will be all right."
RANCO, INC. 433
About February 1943, employees were solicited, chiefly by em-
ployee Gene Ramsey, in the plant during working hours to sign a
petition, headed : "For the C. I. 0. - Against the C. I. 0.117 Enm-
ployee William Baker testified without contradiction and we find
that he was hsked by John McCabe, his,set-up man, during working
hours to sign the petition., Levi Young, a press operator in Depart-
ment 12, testified without contradiction and we find that he was asked
by Rainey to sign the petition and that, at Young's suggestion,
Ranney brought the petition to Department 12 during lunch hour,
and placed it on the desk 'used by Richard Spires, the' foreman, and
James Gilbert, the assistant foreman. Young further testified that
-the petition- disappeared during the lunch hour and that, while
Ranney and, the employees were "arguing" over its disappearance,
Gilbert returned from lunch and, hearing part of the argument, asked
Young."why in Hell" he did not give "that, bunch of papers back"
as it was "causing a rumpus." When Young replied that he did not
have,the- petition, Gilbert, according to Young, "hunted all over the
place" for the petition. • Employee Elsworth Rhoades also testified
that after the petition disappeared, in February 1943, "around the
noon hour," he was asked by Foreman Gilbert whether he had. seen
"that paper Gene Ranney had"; that Gilbert searched for, and asked
about, the paper for "two or three days"; and that Rhoades thereafter
found the paper and gave it to Lewis Strickland, International Repre-
sentative of the Union. Gilbert testified that he did not see the
paper or know its purport, that Young first informed him of its dis-
appearance, that he did not .ask anyone about the paper or search
.for it, and that he was asked either by Clarence Heyder, a set-up man,
or by Gene Ranney as to the whereabouts of the petition. The Trial
Examiner did not credit Gilbert's testimony and found that the
respondent, by the actions and statements'of set-up man McCabe and
Foreman Gilbert, by permitting the open, and unrestrained circula-
tion of the petition and solicitation of employees during working
hours, and by reason of the fact that the petition contained the names
of a foreman and a number of set-up men, participated in and
assisted a campaign against the Union, thereby interfering with the'
statutory rights 'of its employees. We do not ,agree. As we have,
found above, set-up men and group leaders are not supervisory em-
ployees and therefore, their acts cannot be attributed to the respond-
ent. The record establishes that the Union engaged extensively in
4 The petition consists of several sheets of manila paper stapled together,'eacli divided
by a center line into two columns, the words "Tor the C I 0 " appearing at the top of the
left-hand column, and the words "Against the C I 0 " at the top of the iight-hand column
In its piesent form the paper contains only the names of those employees opposed to the
C. I O, the names of those in favor having been erased prior to the introduction of the
exhibit in evidence Appioximately 180 names are listed as "Against the C I. 0 ," includ-
ing the names of a foreman, group leaders, and set-up men.
601248-45-vol. 57-29
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizational efforts during working hours in the plant; particularly
in the solicitation of members. There is no evidence that the re-
shondent interfered with such activities of the Union., Under such
circumstances, therefore, the circulation of a petition in opposition to
the Union_ during working hours is, in our opinion, not unlawful.
Accepting the ' Trial Examiner's resolution of the conflicting testi
mony, we find that, under these circumstances, the statements and
activities, of, Foreman Gilbert with respect to the petition •were
insignificant. , -
Shortly after the disappearance of the- petition mentioned above,
copies of a retaliatory pamphlet, containing statements derogatory to
'the Union, were distributed in the plant. Employee William Baker
testified that two set-up men, McCabe 'and Holly, and employee Ran-
ney distributed the pamphlets in_ the plant on the second shift. The
record does not disclose whether the distribution occurred during
working hours. At least one copy of the pamphlet was posted in,the
plant and remained posted for several months. The Trial Examiner
' found that the respondent, by permitting and participating in the dis-
tribution of the pamphlet inside the plant through the set-up men and
by permitting the pamphlet to remain posted in the plant, actively
campaigned against the Union and thereby interfered with employees'
rights guaranteed by the Act. We do not agree. Since.we'.have
found that set-up men-are not supervisory employees. the respondent
is not accountable for their activities. Moreover, as mentioned above,
the record discloses that throughout the early part 'of the organiza-
tional campaign, employees were permitted to campaign not only in
Apposition to the Union but also in- its behalf without restraint on the
l)ait of the respondent. It is undisputed that the Union posted on
Q de falls of the plant numerous stickers measuring approximately 2
by,4'ifches and stating, "Join - Vote U. A. W. - C. I. 0." Although
il;[ia_r' xt clryar that these stickers were posted at the time of the postuig
ofrithe,,atktLi,nion pamphlet, it is not unreasonable to infer, as we
o,;tltatif , y fnere in fact posted during the intensive period of the
.!ill -ion's pr^ganiza^t^ional activities., In the absence of any evidence to
^tlemonstrateii;terqepial of comparable privileges to the Union, we find
-t3hatlthe,ciuculation,,ar l posting of the anti-union pamphlet were not
vriolativeotfrthe1Act;t e'i
_l} 19,3,jJa3nes Criner, a punch press operator, and se^-hAbout Alan
eral%ptheii erpployeesof Department 12 were ordered ,by' their supervi-
sor, James Gilbert, to report to Charles Miller;-a stockroom employee;
andias8ist inthe,moving of,,the,r:aw stockroom of Department 20. The,
einpTh ees perfoririei^ this ti$sk'duiing overtime hours. Criner testi
fied;lwithout contradiction, -that at,thectime the stockroom was moved.
17 So P g11SUfl-trt !r L n ias i acing" ui >;on^button, tha tDZ^ller said, with,reference to the
n',w ?u; , ,f 1,'it GS9S.G tt ._
02-
RAN co; INC. 435.
union insignia , "What the Hell are you doing with that on there; you
ran't' wear that around here to work," and that Miller thereupon
"jerked" the button from Criner's collar . The Trial Examiner found
that Miller was a , supervisory employee and that the respondent was
accordingly responsible for his statements and-activities . We do not-
agree. The respondent maintained three stockrooms , one for the re-
frigeration and aeronautical controls departments, one for the binoc-
ular departments , and one for ' the toolroom . ' Miller and two other
employees worked , in the refrigeration and aeronautical control stock-
room. Miller testified , without contradiction , that his duties consisted
of "receiving and checking in raw stock , putting it away, takingstock'
out of the press room , and over to the screw machines , disposed of scrap
from - the press room and screw machines, sweeping the floor and any-
thing else that need to be done .?' About March 1943, his stockroom.
was moved to a new location. About 8 or 10 employees of other
departments were given overtime work to assist in the moving, which
took about a week . Criner testified that Miller gave all, orders and
kept track of the time , that Miller was "overseer" of the stockroom, and
that he felt that Miller had power to discharge him because when
Foreman Gilbert "was sending the boys up there ," Miller -said, "All
right, they can come up here if they want to work , but, if they- don't
they won't come ." From the latter statement attributed by Criner to
Miller, the Trial Examiner inferred that Miller possessed supervisory
powers. We do not agree . We find that Miller was not a super-
visory employee and that his statements are not attributable to the
respondent.
Welch testified , without contradiction , to the following colloquy with
Robert, Dunlap, secretary of the respondent ,8 on August 2, 1943: As
Welch was walking to the stockroom , he met Dunlap, who looked at
the union steward badge and union button worn by Welch. Later in
the day, Dunlap approached Welch in the maintenance room, touched
the union button , and inquired , "What's this ?" Welch replied that it
was a union badge. Whereupon , Dunlap asked the meaning of the
second badge . Welch answered that it was a.steward 's badge. Dunlap
asked "Who gave ,you the right to be a steward? Steward of what?"
When Welch answered , "The C. I. 0.," Dunlap countered, "Who gave
you the right to be a steward of that? " Welch replied , "The other
members, the other members of the union ." 'The conversation ended
with Dunlap inquiring , "What union ." Welch 'walked out of the main-
tenance room without further reply.
By letter dated August 3, 1943, the Union notified the respondent
that it represented a majority'of the respondent 's employees and re-
quested that the respondent recognize the Union as the exclusive
° Dunlap did not testify at the hearing.
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of all employees. The respondent did not reply to the
letter .9 On August 5,, 1943, the Union filed with the Board