Stainless Welded Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 204 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

2 04 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing and the record as a whole it is apparent
that the plastic-mold operator does not possess the skills
usually associated with a craft employee. Nor does he have
such a community of interest with molders and coremakers as to
warrant his inclusion in the molders unit. On the contrary his
interests are more closely allied with those of the production
and maintenance employees. Therefore we find that the plastic-
mold operator is appropriately included in the production and
maintenance unit represented by the United Steelworkers of
America, CIO.5
5 Although the Steelworkers did not appear at the reopened hearing , it did intervene in the
original hearing in this case . Furthermore the Employer testified that it had signed a contract
with the Steelworkers on October 31, 1952 , covering plastic -mold operators, thus it is apparent
that the Steelworkers is willing to represent this classification as part of its unit.
STAINLESS WELDED PRODUCTS, INC. and LOCAL 274,
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPREN-
TICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY,
AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-5019. April 17, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by
the Board in the above-entitled proceeding on November 3,
1952, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November
24, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Second Region, among the employees of the
Employer in the unit found to be appropriate. At the close of
the election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The
tally shows that 67 ballots were cast, of which 27 were for the
Petitioner, 24 were against the Petitioner, and 16 were
challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were
filed by either of the parties.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect
the results of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to
the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation
and, on February 26, 1953, issued and served upon the parties
his report on challenges. In his report, the Regional Director
recommended that challenges to the ballots of Genino (Jerry)
Agresti, Robert Masalski, Aroy Williams, Albert Johnson,
Frank Greb, Ennio Dellavia, and Louis Ricco be sustained,
and that the challenges to the ballots of Frank Cavalier, Frank
Morgan, Louis Zawada, Bernard Bentsen, Xavier Boguslawski,
John Impomeni, John Kelly, Valgene Lloyd, and Elwood Rennie
be overruled and that these ballots be opened and counted. The
Petitioner duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
recommendations with respect to the ballots cast by the individ-
uals considered below.'
1 As no exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director 's recommendations with respect
to the ballots cast by Aroy Williams, Albert Johnson, Frank Greb, Ennio Dellavia, and Louis
Ricco, we shall adopt these recommendations and sustain the challenges.
104 NLRB No. 18.
STAINLESS WELDED PRODUCTS, INC. 205
Genino ( Jerry ) Agresti : The Employer challenged Agresti's
ballot on the ground that he had been discharged for cause before
the election . The Regional Director recommended that the
challenge be sustained . The Petitioner contends that Agresti
was discharged for his union activities and that therefore he
was eligible to vote. However, as no unfair labor practice
charge has been filed , we agree with the Regional Director that,
for the purpose of this proceeding , Agresti was presumptively
discharged for cause . Accordingly , we shall sustain the chal-
lenge to Agresti ' s ballot.
Frank Cavalier , Frank Morgan, Louis Zawada, Bernard
Bentsen : The Petitioner challenged the ballots of these em-
ployees on the ground that they were supervisors . Cavalier,
Morgan, and Zawada are classified on the Employer ' s records
as foremen. In its Decision and Direction of Election , the Board
found, in accordance with the agreement of the parties and the
uncontradicted testimony , that foremen were nonsupervisory
employees to be included in the unit . Bentsenhas been employed
since the end of September 1952 as a group leader or as a fore-
man. The Regional Director ' s investigation discloses that
Bentsen has substantially the same duties and responsibilities
as Zawada, with whom he alternates shifts in the brake depart-
ment every week.
As there is nothing in the Petitioner ' s exceptions establishing
that the foregoing employees were in fact supervisors , we find
that they are eligible to vote and shall overrule the challenges
to their ballots.
Xavier Boguslawski , John Impomeni, John Kelly, Valgene
Lloyd : The Petitioner contends that these employees were
transferred from Stainless Products , Inc., another company,
for the purpose of influencing the election . The Regional Direc-
tor's report discloses that these employees have been in the
Employer's employ since before the election and continuously
thereafter past the date of the election . No charges have been
filed alleging that any of these employees were transferred in
violation of the Act. In view of the foregoing , we shall overrule
the challenges to the ballots of these employees.
Robert Masalski : The Board agent challenged Masalski's
ballot because his name did not appear on the eligibility list.
The Regional Director ' s report reveals that Masalski has
been continuously employed by Stainless Products , Inc., and
not by the Employer herein, since October 6 , 1952, before the
eligibility date. Accordingly , we shall , in agreement with the
Regional Director , sustain the challenge to Masalski ' s ballot.
Elwood Rennie: The Petitioner challenged the ballot of this
employee on the ground that he is a supervisor. It appears
from the Regional Director's report that Rennie is classified
as a shop inspector whose duties include the inspection and
testing of welded pipe. He is hourly rated , punches a time
clock , and spends most of his working time in the Employer's
yard in close proximity to material handlers who are included
in the unit . In the course of his work Rennie may give routine
instructions to other employees with respect to the unloading
of trucks or the packing of cases. In view of the foregoing,
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we find that Rennie is not a supervisor as defined in the Act.
Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenge to his ballot.
DIRECTION
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that, as a part of the investi-
gation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with Stainless Welded Products, Inc., Jersey
City, New Jersey, the Regional Director for the Second Region
shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, within ten (10) days from the date of
this Direction, open and count the ballots of Frank Cavalier,
Frank Morgan, Louis Zawada, Bernard Bentsen, Xavier
Boguslawski, John Impomeni, John Kelly, Valgene Lloyd,
and Elwood Rennie, and shall thereafter prepare and, cause
to be served upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, in-
cluding therein the count of the said challenged ballots.
HAFFENREFFER & CO., INC. and FRED LESTER
LOCAL NO. 14, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREW-
ERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and FRED LESTER. Cases
Nos. 1-CA-1208 and 1-CB-192. April 20, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 31, 1952, Trial Examiner William F. Scharni-
kow issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Re-
port attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondents filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate, Report and supporting briefs.
Respondent Employer's and Respondent Union's requests
for oral argument are hereby denied. The record, including the
exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and posi-
tions of the parties.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modi-
fied below.:
1 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 [Members Houston , Murdock, and
Styles].
I We find that , since no union-security agreement was in effect at the time when the Re-
spondent Union requested Lester's discharge and when Respondent Employer discharged him,
the Respondent Employer committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
104 NLRB No. 24.