Screwmatic, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1373 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

SCREWMATIC, INC. 1373
Screwmatic, Inc. and International Union, Allied
Industrial Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases
21-CA-12519 and 21-RC-13581
June 30, 1975
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On January 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Martin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Employer filed a brief in opposition to the
General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
only to the extent consistent herewith.
1. Counsel for General Counsel excepted inter
alia to the finding of the Administrative Law Judge
that certain employees of the Employer, namely
Sandor Kiss, Krsto Bozicevic, Pieter Van Asch,
Heinz Pasche, Arlette Zanoni, and Roy Ryborz are
not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act. We find merit in these exceptions for the
reasons stated below.
As set forth in the Decision of the Administrative
Law Judge, there was considerable testimony at the
hearing bearing on the supervisory status of the
above-named individuals. That relevant to our
inquiry is not significantly disputed, and our differ-
ence with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion
reflects a judgment as to the inferences reasonably to
be drawn from all of the testimony.' General
Counsel contends, and we agree, that he adduced
evidence which established that the six individuals
whose status is in issue "responsibly direct" the work
of other employees within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act. We base this determination on the
following facts:
Respondent has organized its operation into 23
departments and at the time of the hearing employed
a total of approximately 160 rank-and-file employ-
I The Administrative Law Judge did not resolve conflicts in testimony
by resolutions of credibility , but rather assumed the truth of all testimony.
He made his judgment on the basis of all the testimony , ajudgment which
we reject only because of our disagreement as to the conclusions reasonably
to be drawn from all the record
ees. There were four admitted supervisors: President
C. Zimmerli, General Manager B. Clow, Supervisor
V. Beasley, and Supervisor and Quality Control
Manager T. Nassir. Each of the six individuals in
question was employed in one of six of the depart-
ments and each acted as "leadman" with respect to
the work of his department's employees. The comple-
ment of department employees with whom each
worked varied from 9 to 14 and, in all cases, the 6
individuals in question received hourly pay exceed-
ing that of the remaining employees by a minimum
of 25 cents per hour and a maximum of $1.55 per
hour. There is no evidence that any of the individuals
in dispute have the authority to hire or discharge
employees. But, there is evidence that the employees
looked to them as their supervisors in the day-to-day
performance of their duties. The alleged supervisors,
for example, initialed the timecards of employees
who neglected to punch in, distributed paychecks,
collected vacation slips designating the vacation
preferences of employees, and granted permission to
employees to leave early. Although Respondent
contends that these functions are merely ministerial
in character and not indicative of supervisory status,
they are nevertheless relevant to our inquiry inas-
much as they indicate to whom the employees look
for authority in their relationship with their Employ-
er.
The testimony of employees of the Respondent
further indicated that the alleged supervisors various-
ly engaged in training new employees, assigning
employees duties, transferring employees within a
department or within the plant, and exercising
quality control with the authority to reprimand for
poor quality and to require the employee to repeat an
assignment. Normally these factors in themselves
would establish the supervisory status of these
individuals within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act. However, Respondent contended, and the
Administrative Law Judge agreed, that the real locus
of authority rested with higher management and that
the alleged supervisors were merely conduits for the
orders emanating from their supervisors. We find this
position untenable. As indicated above, the record
shows that Respondent employed approximately 160
employees in its 23 departments. According to
Respondent, all of these employees were directly
supervised by President Zimmerli with the assistance
of only the three other production supervisors.2
President Zimmerli, of course, has other administra-
tive responsibilities. But, even if we assume he is
2 The record discloses there is another individual , Paul Stnewski, an
accountant , in the managerial hierarchy of the Respondent . There is no
indication in the record however , that he supervises any aspect of
production, or has any supervisory authority over production employees.
218 NLRB No. 210
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged primarily in the supervision of production
employees,3 the ratio of supervisors to production
employees would be 40 to 1. Respondent attempted
to explain away the abnormally high employee-to-
supervisor ratio both at the hearing and in its brief.4
But in so doing, its officers admitted that the
employee complement expanded and that it had
difficulty maintaining effective supervision through
use of only the four individuals, supra. Thus,
according to President Zimmerli it was seeking to
find suitable replacements for its current leadpersons
(the alleged supervisors herein) so as to promote the
leadpersons to supervisors.
Considering all of the above, including the fact that
acceptance of Respondent's contention that the
alleged supervisors are merely employees would
leave the great majority of the Respondent's employ-
ees without effective supervision,5 we are convinced,
and we find, that the General Counsel established a
prima facie case as to the supervisory status of the six
individuals here in issue , which the Respondent did
not effectively rebut. We conclude, accordingly, that
Sandor Kiss, Krsto Bozicevic, Pieter Van Asch,
Heinz Pasche, Arlette Zanoni, and Roy Ryborz are
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act.
2. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
it was unnecessary to treat with the alleged unfair
labor practices because all of the alleged violations
(with the exception of one allegation based on
conduct attributable to Victor Beasley, an admitted
supervisor) concerned conduct of individuals found
not to be supervisors but, rather, to be employees.
With respect to the conduct attributed to Victor
Beasley, the Administrative Law Judge found, "on
the posture most favorable to the General Counsel,"
that the incident was trivial and isolated and did not
warrant an order against Respondent. In light of our
resolution of the supervisory issues herein, we shall
remand the unfair labor practice proceeding to the
Administrative Law Judge for his resolutions of
credibility and disposition of the alleged unfair labor
practices. We further direct that he reconsider the
conduct attributed to Victor Beasley, that is, wheth-
er, in light of his findings on remand, the alleged
violation occurred, and if so whether a remedial
order would be appropriate.
3. Our finding that Sandor Kiss, Krsto Bozicevic,
Pieter Van Asch, Heinz Pasche, Arlette Zanoni, and
3 President Zimmerli testified that of the 10 hours which he daily spent at
the shop 2 hours were spent in the office and 8 on the floor . He further
testified that most of his time on the floor was spent in inspection, a
department comprised of approximately 15 employees which is also under
the direct supervision of Plant and Quality Control Manager Nassir
Respondent has directed our attention to UTD Corporation ( Union-
Card Division), 165 NLRB 346 ( 1967), in which we found that certain
leadmen were not supervisors . Although many of the facts of that case
Roy Ryborz are supervisors also has bearing on the
election in Case 21-RC-13581, as they are ineligible
voters and cast challenged ballots in that election.
We shall accordingly order that the challenges to
their ballots be sustained, and that their ballots
remain unopened and uncounted. As the remaining
challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect
the results of the election, and inasmuch as the tally
of ballots reveals that a majority of the votes cast
were for the Union, we ordinarily would issue the
appropriate certification. However, Respondent filed
objections to the election, and the Administrative
Law Judge found one of them meritorious. Accord-
ingly, he recommended that, in the event that the
Union received a majority of the votes cast, as we
have now found that it did, the election be set aside.
No exceptions were taken to the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that there was merit to the Employ-
er's objection or to his recommendation that a
second election should be conducted in the event
that the tally of ballots was in favor of representa-
tion. We shall, therefore, adopt the recommendation
of the Administrative Law Judge and direct that a
second election be held in Case 21-RC-l3581.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that, pursuant to Section
102.48 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, Case 21-CA-12519 be, and it hereby
is, remanded to Administrative Law Judge Martin S.
Bennett for the purpose of deciding the merits of the
issues joined by the pleadings in that matter.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Administrative Law
Judge shall prepare and serve on the parties a
Supplemental Decision in Case 21-CA-12519 con-
taining his resolutions of the credibility of witnesses,
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommen-
dations; and that, following the service of such
Supplemental Decision on the parties, the provisions
of Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, shall be applicable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 21-RC-13581
be, and it hereby is, severed from Case 21-CA-
12519.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED , with respect to Case 21-
RC-13581, that the challenges to the ballots cast by
Sandor Kiss, Krsto Bozicevic, Pieter Van Asch,
Heinz Pasche, Arlette Zanoni, and Roy Ryborz in
appear to be similar to those in the instant case , we note that the employee
supervisor ratio in that case was 16 to I whereas in the instant case it is
40 to 1.
S Compare American Book Division, Litton Educational Publishing, Inc.,
214 NLRB No. 44 (1974); Stephens Produce Co., Inc. and Temple Stephens
Company, 214 NLRB No. 8 (1974); Dunfey Family Corporation d/b/a
Sheraton Motor Inn, 210 NLRB 790 (1974); Lawrence Rigging Inc, 202
NLRB 1094 (1973 ); Ridgely Manufacturing Co., Inc, 198 NLRB 860 (1972).
SCREWMATIC, INC. 1375
the election held on March 8, 1974, be, and they
hereby are, sustained.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
in Case 21-RC-13581 on March 8, 1974, be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and that said proceeding be, and
it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 21 to conduct a new election when he deems
the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargain-
ing representative.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN S. BENNETT, Administrative Law Judge: This
consolidated matter was heard at Los Angeles, California,
on October 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1974. The unfair labor
practice complaint in Case 21-CA-12519, issued April 29,
amended October 2, 1974, and based upon charges filed
March 15 and April 23, 1974, by International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein
the Union, alleges that Respondent, Screwmatic, Inc., has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Consolidated with the foregoing was a hearing on
challenged ballots and objections to the conduct of an
election held on March 8, 1974, in Case 21-RC-13581,
involving the employees of Respondent. Simply stated,
certain employees, allegedly supervisors, purportedly en-
gaged in the unfair labor practices set forth in the unfair
labor practice complaint and are contended by the General
Counsel to be supervisors ineligible to vote for purposes of
the representation case.
The Union's petition filed on January 25, 1974, sought
certification as the representative of Respondent's pro-
duction and maintenance employees, including inspectors,
leadpeople, shipping and receiving employees, janitors and
truckdrivers, with the customary exclusions . The parties
entered into a stipulation for certification upon a consent
election which was duly held on March 8, 1974. Of
approximately 159 eligible voters, 73 ballots were cast in
favor of the Union, 67 against it, and 10 were challenged.
Nine were challenged by the Union on the basis of their
alleged supervisory status.' Respondent, or the employer,
filed timely objections to the conduct of the election, as did
the Union. The Regional Director recommended that the
challenges to the ballots of Bozicevic, Kiss , Pasche, and
Van Asch be sustained, that Respondent's objections to the
election be overruled,2 that the Union's objections be
deemed moot, and that the Union be duly certified.
In its Order of August 8, 1974, the Board ordered a
hearing on the employer's objections to the election, as well
as the challenges to the ballots of the four named above
and, in addition, the ballots of employees Carr, Copley,
Ladanne , Liechti, and Zanoni, the latter five not passed
i The Board, in its Decision and Order directing a hearing , sustained the
challenge of the Board agent to the ballot of a 10th, Marion Jackson, whose
name did not appear on the eligibility hat.
2 Namely that the Union threatened to expose the illegal immigrant
upon by the Regional Director. The alleged supervisory
status of one Roy Ryborz, although not adverted to in the
decision in the representation case, is also at stake herein.
Briefs have been duly submitted by the General Counsel
and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Screwmatic, Inc., is a corporation maintaining its
principal office and place of business at Azusa, California,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of precision
machine parts. It annually sells and ships goods and
products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located
outside the State of California. I find that the operations of
Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Il. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction: The Issues
Both cases involve the issue of alleged supervisory status.
The unfair labor practice complaint attributes conduct
violative of Section 8(aXl) of the Act to seven alleged
supervisors, namely Beasley, Ryborz, Van Asch, Pasche,
Kiss , Bozicevic, and Zanoni.
Respondent argues in its brief that five, namely Kiss,
Bozicevic, Van Asch, Pasche, and Zanoni, were challenged
at the March 8 collection. 31 The ballots of Ladanne, Carr,
Copley, said Liechti, not involved in the unfair labor
practice case, were similarly challenged. Respondent
concedes the supervisory status of Beasley, but vigorously
disputes the supervisory status of the others named above.
As will appear, I agree with Respondent on the premise
that such authority as is exercised by those involved herein,
save Beasley, is manifestly, on a preponderance of the
evidence, of a "routine or clerical nature." Section 2(11) of
the Act.
Also admitted to be supervisory are President Louis
Zimmerli ; Secretary and General Manager Robert Clow;
Accountant and Office Manager Paul Striewski; and
Supervisor Ted Nassir who is also quality control manager.
B. Alleged Supervisory Status
1. Sandor Kiss
Kiss has been in the employ of Respondent for over 13
years and is the setup man in the Schaubin lathe
status of certain employees to the United States Immigration authorities
and subject them to possible deportation in the event the Union did not win
the election.
3 The challenge to Zanom was not passed upon by the Board.
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department with I I or 12 employees therein at the time of
the election .4 As is manifestly the case with many of
Respondent's personnel, his native tongue is not English;
in his case it is Hungarian.
Witnesses for the General Counsel attributed various
functions to Kiss in an effort to prove his supervisory
status . Thus, former employee Dennis Stevenson testified
that Kiss did no production work, but rather assigned
duties, transferred employees, and trained them. As with
other alleged supervisors, he approved timecards when
personnel neglected to punch the timeclock, gave them
permission to leave early, and received vacation slips which
had been attached to pay envelopes wherein the employees
expressed a preference as to a vacation date.
Both Stevenson and employee Robert Bates attributed to
Kiss threats to report employees to Nassir for poor
production as well as a purported threat by Kiss, attributed
to him by Bates, to transfer an employee to another
department. Arthur Bartolf presented similar testimony as
to the assignment of jobs, notations on timecards, and
letiing employees off early.5
Respondent in turn substantially refuted the foregoing.
None of the three witnesses observed much of what Kiss
did during his workday. They were ignorant as to the
extent he received directions from Nassir. According to
Kiss, Nassir personally delivered•w'ork assignments to the
department and specified the order in which work was to
be done as well as giving him orders to transfer personnel
from one machine to another. In addition, Nassir would
specify who was to do which job, although, on simpler jobs,
Kiss could assign work to the next available employee. In
fact, the instructions from Nassii to Kiss are often given
out well in advance of the actual performance of the job.
As for transfers out of the department, Kiss must clear
these with Nassir, who makes the decision. While the
General Counsel has stressed that Kiss told employees to
be quiet, the record amply demonstrates that employees in
all departments regularly did so to each other. As for the
timecards, the corrections or notations made by Kiss, as
with all other lead personnel, were verified uniformly by
Striewski with Kiss or the involved employee. I see little
support for the position of the General Counsel herein.
2. Pieter Van Asch
Van Asch was in the employ of Respondent for 14 years,
assigned as a setup man in the small screw department,
with approximately 11 other persons in this section. He left
in August of 1974. Gustave Prieto testified for the General
Counsel concerning his observation of the activities of Van
Asch, more particularly that he walked around the
department, worked at his desk, checked the work of
employees , and assigned work to setup men. He claimed
that Van Asch told him where to deliver material from the
receiving department . He also opined that Ronald Mendo-
za, who assigned him work, received his orders from Van
Asch.6
4 Respondent's records designate him as leadman.
5 At this point, it may be noted that all so-called leadpersons have been
instructed by President Zimmerli to unconditionally grant permission to
leave early to anyone desiring it. There is no discretion in this area and they
do not have authority to deny the request.
Andrew Gutierrez testified that he had seen Van Asch
give work to employees and that Van Asch had directed
him to count parts. There was other testimony that Van
Asch told an employee to work harder and that he
distributed work. Again, Van Asch signed a timecard as
done by Sandor Kiss, described above.
But Respondent more than offsets the foregoing. Vic
Beasley, an admitted supervisor, is responsible for bringing
work to the screw machine department and his written
orders specify not only the sequence in which jobs are to be
done but also which operators are to perform the
operations. As for simple jobs, Van Asch would merely
assign the job to the next available operator. When help
was needed from other departments, Beasley would
arrange the transfer.
Prieto also testified that Ronald Mendoza, who gave him
orders, was operating under orders from Van Asch. This
was based upon the fact that he allegedly saw Van Asch
physically hand written orders to Mendoza. But there are
actually three screw machine departments at the plant. Van
Asch had the responsibility for setting up the small
machines; Mendoza set up the medium-size machines; and
one, Sams, set up the larger machines . Because, in bringing
the written orders to the department, Beasley would
initially pass by the area where Van Asch worked, Beasley
would place the orders for the other two sections in this
location. The machines handled by Mendoza were located
some distance from the dropoff point and Van Asch would
deliver these orders to Mendoza purely as a matter of
convenience. And as for Verduzco leaving to clean the
restroom, Beasley made the decision as to when he might
be excused.
Prieto conceded that it was common for employees to
walk around the department in order to obtain parts. And
employees frequently yelled at each other to return to
work. Even when Beasley left on vacation, he gave Van
Asch specific instructions as to how employees were to be
utilized during his absence.
Mention was made of a desk utilized by Van Asch, but
the simple answer is that other employees shared the same
desk. The training of new employees by Van Asch took but
minutes per employee and coworkers assisted others in
these areas. As in the case of Kiss, and all those involved
herein, Van Asch merely reported early departures to
supervision, in his case to Beasley. Indeed, Mendoza
played a similar role as to employees in the medium-size
screw department and Van Asch had no authority to
resolve any disputes with employees over the time of their
arrival at work.
3. Krsto Bozicevic
Bozicevic is leadman in the Micron transfer machine
department with seven operators and has been with
Respondent for 18 years. Stevenson claimed that he
overheard Bozicevic ask leadman Roy Ryborz if Ryborz
had available work in his department because a machine
8 The General Counsel relies upon testimony by Prieto that Juan
Verduzco, who spoke little English, cleaned the restroom at noon each day.
Van Asch would allegedly tell Prieto to have Verduzco wait until a
replacement was located . I see little evidence of supervisory status herein.
SCREWMATIC, INC. 1377
utilized by Bozicevic had broken down. Stevenson, as is
readily apparent , did not know whether Bozicevic had
previously consulted with anyone above him. While
Andrew Gutierrez claimed that on one occasion Bozicevic
sent an employee to the former' s department , he later
conceded that the employee told him that Nassir had so
instructed Bozicevic.
Of little assistance to the General Counsel is testimony
by Gutierrez that he saw Bozicevic sitting at a workbench
and that he transferred employees. For he also testified
that he saw other employees work at the same bench, that
transfers to other machines were made pursuant to the
direction of Nassir and that Gutierrez spent but one-half
hour a day in the department of Bozicevic.
Moreover, it is uncontroverted that when Bozicevic
transferred employees to another machine it was done
under explicit instructions from President Zimmerli so as
to avoid strain on the eyes of the employee because of the
nature of the work. Clow exercises primary supervision
over the Micron department and frequently overrules
Bozicevic so as to complete the job in a hurry, and also
specifies the order in which jobs are to be done.
The Micron department is unique in that President
Zimmerli has decreed that this department has priority
over all work in the plant and that Bozicevic has first call
on available help. Despite this, Bozicevic normally seeks
out Zimmerli, Nassir, or Clow prior to making any
transfers . In the event of the unavailability of any one of
these three, he is then authorized to directly contact
another setup man or leadman, pursuant to Zimmerli's
express advance authorization, again this based upon the
priority of his department.
It is noteworthy that Bozicevic cannot require an
employee to work in his department . It has happened that
an employee of another department has resisted the
request of Bozicevic who is then constrained to seek Nassir
or Clow to effect the transfer . One other activity of his is to
request employees to take parts to the tumbling depart-
ment for processing , but this is commonly done by all
employees in the Micron department.
Here as well, his initialling of timecards is reviewed by
Stnewski with Bozicevic , or the employee or both. It is
uncontroverted that any reprimand he issues to an
employee emanates from an explicit instruction from one
of the three supervisors named above , this resulting from
their perusal of inspection reports . In addition, Bozicevic
has played no role in hiring , firing, or layoffs , or in
recommending same.
4. Heinz Pasche
Pasche has been in the employ of Respondent for
approximately 12 years and is classified as a setup man in
the milling department . More specifically, he is assigned as
leadman over the large mills with 14 other workmen in the
department . It is noteworthy that Tony Van Kempen,
whose alleged supervisory status is not in issue herein, is
leadman over the small milling machines with eight other
employees. Similarly classified is Victor Alba in tracer mills
with three other employees.
The testimony adduced by the General Counsel is to the
same effect as that supplied concerning the other alleged
supervisors . Thus, Daniel Moore testified that Pasche spent
approximately one-half of his time assigning setup work to
other employees in the department and checking that the
setups were performed properly. Moore opined that Pasche
devoted about two hours a day to office work . Moore also
recalled that Pasche had warned employees about the
quality of their work and their tardiness . Pasche as well
submitted and received forms concerning desired vacation
periods which were attached to the pay envelopes he
distributed . Moore claimed that Pasche transferred em-
ployees to other departments when there was a shortage of
work and that there was one occasion when Pasche
allegedly refused to permit a transferred employee to
return to his department.
As in the previous cases , it is clear that Pasche
distributed work only at the explicit direction of Zimmerli
or Nassir who bring work orders to his department which
specify the machine to be used and the order of job
performance . They similarly designated the employees
deemed qualified to perform the respective tasks . Again, in
the event of a simple job, Pasche would merely assign the
job to the next available operator. Also assisting Respon-
dent is the testimony of Moore that Van Kempen
distributed and checked work on the small milling
machines. Also, Pasche uncontrovertedly testified that he
must consult with President Zimmerli or Nassir before
seeking help from another department and further, that
Nassir dictates which jobs are to be "rush" jobs.
Pasche also testified , and I find , that training of a new
employee takes but minutes , that employees have refused
to obey his request that they train a new employee; and
that Nassir must in such cases intercede to accomplish this
objective .. Pasche specifically contradicted testimony by
Moore thrt he had warned an employee about poor work.
That he asked Nassir to hire his brothel is not deemed
probative in view of the fact that Nassir personally
interviewed the brother prior to his hire . Much of Moore's
testimony is manifestly hearsay and, in addition, he
deposed in an affidavit to the General Counsel his lack of
certainty as to the relevant facts.
5. Arlette Zanoni
Zanoni worked for Respondent for almost 13 years
between June 1961 and August 6, 1974, and was classified
as a leadgirl in the inspection department which has 14
other employees . A number of employees testified as to her
alleged supervisory status . Thus, Dennis Steverisoa stressed
that her desk was separate from those of the other girls: in
the department and that when he delivered work to this
department, she distributed it to the others therein and also
took parts to the shipping and tumbling departments.
But the record amply demonstrates that Zanom was one
of five in this department who performed identical work,
namely inspecting samples of products . If approved, they
were then sent to the shipping department ; if found
unsatisfac tory, the entire batch would then be routed to
other girls in the department for complete inspection.
Zanom uncontrovertedly testified, and I find , that she
and the other girls took the work as it came in and that no
particular decision was made as to who made out the
inspection sheets or as to who would thereafter inspect the
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parts; stated otherwise, parts requiring inspection were
assigned to anyone not busy at the time. While Zanom on
one occasion did initial a timecard, this was done at the
explicit instruction of President Zimmerli and Striewski
verified this with the employee. Some employees did
contact Zanom about pay raises, but she merely relayed
these requests to Zimmerli without any recommendation.
The latter, as she testified, passes through the department
six or seven times a day.
As noted, the General Counsel has stressed that the desk
of Zanoni is separate from that of the others in the
department, but her testimony is uncontroverted and I find
that her desk is one in a row of four set off in a different
direction from the other desks in the department. I fail to
see how this assists the General Counsel.
6. Roy Ryborz
Ryborz was hired in December 1971 as a setup man or
lead man in the drilling and tapping department. There
were some other 15 employees in the department; he
received $3.60 an hour and Stevenson, adverted to above,
hired 1 year later and then transferred to the department,
received $3.00 an hour. This, in essence, ties in with
Respondent's contention developed below that those
enjoying higher wage rates did so because of their greater
seniority.
The testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel was
similar to that adduced above. Thus, Stevenson testified
that Ryborz spent most of his time doing setups and
drawing tools for various jobs, that he transferred
employees to different machines in the department, and
that he transferred them to other departments on a
temporary basis. Ryborz approved timecards for Stevenson
and others who neglected to punch in. He also claimed that
employees had cleared early departures with Ryborz, that
Ryborz criticized employees for poor work, and that he
threatened to report them as well as Stevenson to the front
office, specifically to Nassir.
Gloria Starkey corroborated Stevenson that Ryborz
trained her and directed and checked her work, and that he
also criticized employees for neglecting work. Gordon
Palmer testified to the same general effect. Stevenson
testified he sought in July of 1973 to transfer into the
department of Ryborz and that Ryborz said he would
recommend him to Nassir; in addition, he claimed that
Nassir thereafter approached him and referred to the
recommendation by Ryborz. He claimed also that he once
asked Ryborz for a raise and that, upon his return from
vacation several weeks later, Nassir told him he had the
raise and that Ryborz had recommended it.
Little weight can be given to the testimony by Justine
White that she asked Ryborz about an opening for her
boyfriend, Marion Jackson; that Ryborz supplied her with
an application for him; that he agreed to talk with Nassir
about it; that she returned the application to Ryborz; and
that 2 weeks later Jackson was hired.
As heretofore noted, and as particularly noted directly
above, the testimony by the witnesses for the General
Counsel leaves much to be desired concerning the alleged
supervisory status of Ryborz. Moreover, the distribution of
work by Ryborz was little else than carrying out the
instructions of admitted supervisors. As Ryborz testified,
Nassir, who spends 95 percent of his time in the plant,
delivers the work to Ryborz, and specifies the order in
which jobs are to be done.
As for difficult jobs Nassir would even specify that a
particular employee, Elsie, was to perform the tasks; for
simpler jobs, Ryborz merely distributed the work to the
first available person. Stated otherwise, the transfer of
employees from machine to machine was nothing more, in
essence, than the carrying out of orders previously given.
Again, assignment of an employee to a crucial assignment
was done well in advance of the actual task. As for
transfers to another department, these had first to be
cleared with Nassir. Here as well, with respect to
timecards, the notations were perforce reviewed by
Striewski of the office.
Turning to reprimands, and as shown in other depart-
ments, this was nothing more than the customary badinage
among employees to devote themselves to duties; this
perforce was also affected by the prevalent lack of
familiarity with English. Ryborz flatly denied recommend-
ing the transfer of Stevenson into his department and
claimed that he merely relayed the request to Nassir. The
request of Stevenson for a raise was handled in the same
manner. Finally, Gloria Starkey, hired in December of
1973, testified that she asked for a raise 2 weeks after she
started, that Ryborz said he would take it up and that she
received it. The simple answer is that she admitted that
Striewski told her when hired that she would receive a raise
approximately 2 weeks thereafter. This is precisely what
was done. As in the previous designated cases, the evidence
does not preponderate in favor of a finding that Ryborz
enjoyed supervisory status.
7. Gabriel Ladanne 7
Ladanne has been in the lathe department of Respon-
dent for 16 years and speaks poor English. There are 9
others in the department, although in March of 1974 there
were 3 additional for a total of 12. His rate of pay is $5.50
per hour, although the entire roster reflects 7 others who
received $5 an hour or more.
The testimony as to his supervisory status is indeed
meager . Prieto, new to the department in February of 1974
and whose seniority dated back only to mid-summer of
1973, testified that Ladanne invited him to work in that
department and stated that he would take this up with
Nassir. He has observed Ladanne make an entry on a
timecard on one occasion and he cleared leaving work
early on several occasions with Ladanne. Andrew Gutier-
rez testified that Ladanne once asked him to tumble some
parts, but also admitted that other rank-and-file employees
made similar requests and that he complied therewith.
Ladanne, in turn, admitted his poor command of
English, but asserted that Nassir brought in new parts or
assignments and that Nassir would also bring the new hires
directly to the machines. Nassir decided if there was to be a
transfer of employees to another department and the
r Also appearing in the transcript Ledanne. Similarly, the next alleged
supervisor , Janet Copley, also appears as Copeley
SCREWMATIC, INC 1379
witness did not; Nassir passed through the department
approximately 10 times a day.
When an employee was tardy Ladanne, as he testified,
presented the timecard to Nassir for approval and, when a
new job comes in, Nassir turns over the prints and
materials to the operator, as well as announcing which man
is to start the job. When Nassir is on vacation, President
Zimmerli substitutes for hue in checking out jobs and,
moreover, the regular rank-and-file operators regularly
check out thejobs of each other.
Ladanne flatly denied that he recommended Prieto for
transfer to the lathe department. Ladanne, an impressive
witness, testified, and I find, that Prieto asked to work in
the lathe department, that Ladanne replied that he was not
the boss and stated that Prieto would have to take this up
with Nassir. Ladanne flatly denied that he agreed to
contact Nassir with respect to this matter. He also denied
ever approving any timecards or granting permission to
leave early. Here, as well, the evidence preponderates
against a finding as to the supervisory status of Ladanne.
uncontrovertedly testified, and I find, that he has never in
any way recommended the hire or discharge of any
employee. Similarly, he has never disciplined or recom-
mended same as to any employee. Here as well, there is
little or nil to support a finding of supervisory status.
10. Walter Liechti
Liechti was employed by Respondent as a tool-and-
cutter grinder who could not testify herein because he had
returned to his native Switzerland shortly after the election
and is now a permanent resident of that country.
According to the uncontroverted testimony of President
Zimmerli, Liechti did not initiate hiring or firing, did not
distribute paychecks which were distributed by Clow, and
did not direct work. Zimmerli described him as the most
experienced of a group of tool-and-cutter grinders but who
had no supervisory authority of any nature. Indeed, I note
that he made $5.40 per hour as contrasted with the $6.25
earned by Can, described above. I see no support for the
claim that he enjoyed supervisory status.
8. Janet Copley
As in the case of Ladanne, the other alleged cases of
supervisory status grow even less significant. Janet Copley
has been in the shipping and receiving department for
almost 5 years. One record shows her as one of six service
employees who receive $2.90 per hour; Roberta Bent, not
otherwise identified, received $3.10 per hour and the other
ladies received between $2.25 and $2.75 per hour. Another
record of Respondent discloses Copley as one of four
employees classified as shipping clerks under Secretary and
General Manager Clow.
There is little if any evidence of her supervisory status.
Gutierrez testified that he had seen Copley show employ-
ees how to prepare boxes and cartons necessary to ship
merchandise; that on one occasion he observed her ask an
employee to prepare a box; and that she occasionally
asked him to lift heavy boxes for her, although he
responded that she asked this purely as a favor from him.
Copley testified that her duties were identical with those
of the other employees in the shipping department. Prior to
the election she was one of three therein , but she now is
alone in this capacity. Originally, the three performed
routine tasks involving the reception , shipment, and
stowing of stock, as directed by Clow, Nassir, or Zimmerli,
although Clow was her immediate supervisor. When any of
the three neglected to punch timecards, they would bring
them to Clow for approval. Copley has never made
recommendations concerning the hire or fire of employees
and has never been told that she had this authority. I see
little here indicative of supervisory status on her part.
9. Vern Can
Carr has been in the employ of Respondent for almost 6
years. According to Can, he does not direct the work of
Powers, who has been there almost 2 years. Nassir,
Beasley , or Zimmerli delivers the work to the department
and Can and Powers take the jobs in turn. The two men
work separately and Can in no way is responsible for the
work of Powers, but they do assist each other. Can
C. Other Considerations
The General Counsel has adduced some evidence to the
general effect that after the election, Respondent deliber-
ately changed the job functions of a number of those
involved herein so as to reduce such alleged supervisory
functions as they enjoyed before the election. There is little
to support this and it is more than refuted by the testimony
of those involved. In this respect, Respondent points to the
testimony of Prieto that the ostensible supervisory duties of
Van Asch were in effect denigrated after the election. But it
is undisputed that Prieto left the department of Van Asch I
month before the election and had not worked with him
since, hardly a plus factor for the General Counsel.
Without exception, all those treated above spend most of
their time performing routine production work or other
physical labor such as setting up machines. Indeed, they
spend a substantial part of their working time side by side
with their fellow workers. The record is devoid of evidence
that they have ever played any meaningful role in the hire,
fire, promotion, or demotion of any employees, that they
have any power to make effective recommendations in
these areas, or that they responsibly direct their coworkers.
At best, they relay information or instructions from the five
admitted supervisors. See Diana Shops of Washington State,
Inc., 170 NLRB 698 (1968).
The purported assignment of work and transfer of
employees, relied on by the General Counsel, does not
assist him . Here as well , these directions emanated from
top management. While perhaps unusual in this day of
detail and specific job descriptions, the fact is that this is a
rigidly nut shop of the o14 school which is run from the
top, the sole exception being that of Bozicevic who has
express advance authority to procur other help for his
department, but is powerless to effect this on his own if the
employee resists.
As for the making of entries on timecards, distribution of
pay envelopes, and distribution of vacation requests, this
was ministerial in nature and required ratification by top
management . Again, the early departure of employees was
11`j80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
?lbfie ihthout any discretion on the part of the leadpersons
to grant or deny same.
Respondent has directed attention to the Board's
becision in UTD Corporation (Union-Card Division), 165
NLRB 346 (1967), where certain leadmen were found not
to be supervisors. The case is remarkably close to the
foregoing case and it is noteworthy because the leadmen in
that case exercised more powers than those involved
herein ; for example, they submitted written performance
evaluations of personnel, unlike the present case.
True, those involved herein received higher hourly wage
rates , but this is due to their greater skill and seniority, as
shown. All punched a timecard and have worked and
received overtime pay. The admitted supervisor-employee
ratio is higher than that normally found, but as noted, the
plant is rigidly run from the top with supervisors present at
all times ; in fact, no two supervisors are allowed to lunch
together away from plant premises.
Zimmerli uncontrovertedly testified that this type of
installation is relatively new in the United States and that
he would like to promote the persons described above to
true supervisory status, but that he cannot do so because
he is unable to replace them in their current positions with
leadmen.
Higher pay due to seniority and expertise does not
render one a supervisor. See Danielson v. Local No. 99,
ILGWU [Puccini Assessories, Inc.], F. Supp. , 87
LRRM 3005 (1974). For a similar view as to a leadlady, see
Crest Chemical Company, 213 NLRB No. 118 (1974). I find,
therefore, that all those named above are rank-and-file
employees and are straw bosses at best and that such
authority as they may exercise is of a routine and clerical
nature and does not require the use of independent
judgment.
D. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The foregoing findings make it unnecessary, in my
judgment, to treat with the alleged unfair labor practices
attributed to those named above with the exception of
Victor Beasley, an admitted supervisor. I now treat with
the conduct attributed to him.
Employee Prieto testified that, directly after the Union
commenced its organizational drive in December of 1973,
Beasley happened to observe a card in the shirt pocket of
Prieto, this chancing to be a union authorization card, and
asked Prieto what it was; Prieto replied that he had
received it on the previous day and Beasley asked where he
had received it. Prieto responded that he had received it in
the parking lot and Prieto proceeded to proffer the card to
Beasley, although the latter did not ask for it. Prieto did
not request return of the card. Beasley denied ever seeing
the card or taking same from Prieto.
In essence , this is at best a trivial incident, on the posture
most favorable to the General Counsel, and, in any event,
on the same posture, I find it to be an isolated incident not
remotely warranting an order against Respondent.
E. The Union's Alleged Misconduct Prior to the
Election
Andrew Gutierrez testified that he attended a meeting of
Respondent's employees held by the Union approximately
2 weeks before the election. Conducting the meeting were
Charles Graham and Eugene Martin, both International
representatives of the Union at the time; some four or five
employees were present.
According to Gutierrez, Martin told them that when he
was a young organizer for the Union he encountered
reluctance on the part of illegal aliens to vote in favor of
the Union in elections. To counter this resistance, the
Union represented to them that it would start rumors that
if it did not win the election, the United States Immigration
authorities would be contacted and such employees
reported. Martin then added that he did not advise the
employees to follow this counsel , "but, he just grinned and
indicated with a gesture of his hands that this was a
desirable procedure."
Gutierrez further testified, uncontrovertedly, that this
story was spread throughout the plant and that he
ascertained that 80 to 85 percent of the personnel were
aware of these remarks by Martin, this being based on the
fact that Gutierrez spent so much of his time walking about
the plant and making contact with the employees. Indeed,
he became so personally concerned that he took his wife
back to Mexico to ensure that her papers were in order.
Maria Gallegos testified that a union representative
visited her home one or two nights before the election and
uttered a similar threat . While she could not identify him,
Graham volunteered, and I find that this was Jesse
Moreno, a union agent.
I deem it of interest to note that Graham, allegedly
present when Martin spoke to the four or five employees,
"did not hear" the statement attributed to Martin, but did
not categorically deny that the statement was made. In
sum, a very large number of employees were exposed to
this rumor which was manifestly of a most coercive nature
and, significantly, this was a close election. Moreover, a
substantial number of the personnel bore foreign names.
Thus, barring a tally of ballots in favor of nonrepresenta-
tion, it follows, in my judgment, that the election should be
set aside because of this misconduct duly objected to by
the Employer. If a majority of the counted ballots is cast in
favor of nonrepresentation, I shall recommend that the
results of the election be duly certified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Screwmatic, Inc. is an employer whose operations
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act.
[Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from publi-
cation.]
Turning to the representation case, I recommend that the
ballots of the alleged supervisors or, as found, straw bosses
SCREWMATIC, INC. 1381
named above be counted and that the results of the the Union of a threat to expose the illegal immigrant status
election be duly certified. of employees to the U.S. Immigration authorities.
In the event the Union receives a majority of the ballots, In the event a majority of the ballots is cast against the
I recommend that the election be set aside because of the Union, I recommend that a certification of the results of
employer's objection described above, viz, publicizing by the election be issued.