Textile Workers Union of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 5, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 800 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case. It is not a precedent for situations which may be entirely
different.
As the Petitioner does not seek an election in any unit other than
a fleetwide unit which we have found inappropriate, we affirm the
Regional Director's dismissal of the present petition. In view of this
action, we find it unnecessary to pass upon other contentions made by
the parties.
MEMBER LEEDOM, concurring :
As reflected in the principal opinion, the Board previously deter-
mined that the former Robin ships were not an accretion to the Peti-
tioner's then-existing unit, and that separate single-ship units were
appropriate. The Intervenor was certified as the representative of
the employees on seven of such ships, and the Employer and the Inter-
venor have since bargained on the basis of that certification. As there
is no warrant for concluding either that the Board's previous deter-
mination was incorrect, or that intervening events now compel a differ-
ent determination, I agree with my colleagues that the Petitioner's
proposed unit is inappropriate and that the Regional Director's dis-
missal of the instant petition should be affirmed. I do not, however,
subscribe to all of the language in the principal opinion, as I deem it
inappropriate in this case to express an opinion as to the appropriate-
ness of fleetwide or single-ship units in factual situations which are not
now before us.
MEMBER RODGERS, concurring :
I concur in the result.
Textile Workers Union of America and Federation of Textile
Representatives . Case No. 11-RC--1655. November 5,1962
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
On August 24, 1962, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding,' in which it directed an elec-
tion in a unit consisting of all international representatives on the pay-
roll of the Employer. Thereafter, the Employer filed a motion re-
questing that the Board reconsider its findings and decision in this
case insofar as it held that joint board managers are properly included
in the unit, and that, pending its determination, the Board stay the
election? Opposition to the motion was received from the Petitioner.
2138 NLRB 269.
g The Board decided not to stay the election but, instead , on September 12, 1962, di-
rected the Regional Director to impound the ballots of all joint board managers cast in
the election scheduled to commence that day and to provide the Board with a tally of
ballots . The election having been completed such a tally has been supplied the Board
139 NLRB No. 68.
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA 801
In substance the Employer seeks by its motion to reassert the con-
tention that joint board managers should be excluded from the unit
herein because they are officers and employees of the respective joint
boards rather than employees of the Employer and because, in any
event, they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act by reason
of their authority over the joint board's clerical employees.
With respect to the employment relationship, the Board in its
Decision found that there was- -
... no merit in the contention raised by the Employer that the
joint board managers . . . are managerial employees not entitled
to the privileges and protection of the Act, or for other reasons
should not be considered its employees. . . . [Emphasis supplied.]
Ample evidence was developed at the hearing concerning the duties,
responsibilities, and employment relationship 3 of the joint board
managers involved, as well as those of individuals with other job titles
under the general job classification of international representative,
which was considered in detail in determining that they were em-
ployees of the Employer 4
With respect to the Employer's supervisory contention, as it was
rejected in the Board's prior decision only by implication, clarification
of the reasons therefor is warranted. Admittedly, joint board man-
agers have no supervisory authority over any employee of the Em-
This tally of ballots discloses that there were approximately 78 eligible voters and that
78 ballots were cast, of which 39 were for the Petitioner, 17 were against the Petitioner,
and 22 were challenged . The challenged ballots are sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election. The Board is adminstratively informed that all of the challenges
listed on the tally are the ballots which the Board had ordered Impounded.
s Such evidence demonstrates that joint board managers are staff representatives of the
Employer , employed by it and assigned to service the joint boards. Indicia establishing
the employment relationship Include also the assignment , continuing supervision , direction,
and control of the joint board managers by the Employer. In performing this assign-
ment, the manager 's primary purpose and responsibility Is that of guiding the function
of the joint board within the ambit of the policy of the Employer. They are also re-
quired by the Employer to take additional assignments Including the servicing of another
joint board or of locals outside the joint board , and the performance of a variety of
other duties as may be helpful to their supervisor, the regional director. The Employer's
control Is not diminished by the fact that, in accord with the bylaws of some joint boards,
the appointment of a manager may require a vote of ratification or a manager may thereby
become an officer of the joint board , for they are still required to advance the policy of
the Employer even when It is In direct conflict with the sentiments of the body being
serviced . Indeed , joint board managers have been required by the Employer to take over
as trustees to administer joint boards , and two of the managers are currently serving in
this capacity. The joint board managers involved herein are on the Employer's payroll
from which they receive their salary, allowance, and expenses and wherein they retain
their seniority, pension rights, etc. Their compensation is established by the Employer
and may not be supplemented by additional payments from the body serviced . That some
joint boards rebate to the Employer an amount equal to the manager' s salary does not,
in view of all the other supporting Indicia, alter the employment relationship with the
Employer, but would appear to constitute no more than a form of charge for services
rendered.
' Contrary to any suggestion contained in the motion , the Board did not, and does not
here, base its determination as to the composition of the appropriate unit upon a com-
parison of the job titles used by this Employer with those of the ILGWU, but instead, In
accord with its usual practice, rested its decision upon the facts and circumstances of
this case.
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer, and the Employer has no authority over any employee of the
joint board. However, the Employer argues that joint board man-
agers, who are its employees, must be excluded from the unit as su-
pervisors because it appears that they may exercise over joint board
clerical employees, on behalf of and subject to authorization from the
joint board, some of the authority specified in Section 2(11) B of the
Act, and because they also may adjust grievance of employees repre-
sented by the joint board.
There is clearly no merit in this contention. For, as the Board
has previously indicated,' the individual in question must be "em-
ployed as a supervisor" 7 with authority "in the interest of the em-
ployer" to hire, etc., "other employees" of "the employer," to be a su-
pervisor within the meaning of the Act, and thereby be deprived of the
privileges and protection of an employee under the Act. As the joint
board managers do not have supervisory authority over any employee
of this Employer, we find that in their employment relationship with
the Employer, -which is the only relationship relevant here, they are
not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
[The Board denied the motion, insofar as it seeks reconsideration
of the aforesaid Decision and Direction of Election, on the ground
that nothing has been presented in support thereof which would war-
rant a reversal of the Board's finding therein, and directed that the
Regional Director shall forthwith open and count the ballots im-
pounded at the direction of the Board, and serve upon the parties a
revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said challenged
ballots, upon the basis of which he shall issue the appropriate
certification.]
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in
the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision, Order, and
Direction.
6 Section 2 ( 11) : "The term `supervisor' means any individual having authority, in the
interest of the employer, to hire . other employees , . . . or to adjust their griev-
ances. . ... . [ Emphasis supplied.]
6 But'" alo Courier-Empress, Inc., 129 NLRB 932, 986-937 ; Lindsay Newspapers, Inc., 130
NLRB 680, 683, 699-700. Also see Great Lakes Sugar Company, 92 NLRB 1408.
4Section 2 (3) : "The term `employee' . . . shall not include . . . any individual em-
ployed as a supervisor.... [ Emphasis supplied.]
Fitzgerald Mills Corporation and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO . Cases Nos. 10-CA-4681 and 10-CA-4719.
November 7,1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 17, 1962, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
139 NLRB No. 63.