The Steel Products Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 5, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 565
In these circumstances , we find that the Employers have
not clearly and unequivocally evinced an intention henceforth
to pursue a course of individual action with respect to their
labor relations . For this reason , we find that the bargaining
history on a multiemployer basis is controlling in deter-
mining the appropriate unit.9 As single employer units are
too limited in scope, we shall grant Local 6's motion to
dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitioner.]
9 Washington Hardware Company, 95 NLRB 1001 ; Carnation Company, 90 NLRB 1808; cf
Atlas Storage Division, P & V Atlas Industrial Center, Inc , 100 NLRB 1323. The Board's
decision in Construction Device Company , Case No 20-RC-1805 , not reported in printed
volumes of Board decisions , upon which the Employers and the Association rely, is inappli-
cable.
THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANYand UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, Petitioner and
ASSOCIATION OF STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COM-
PANY EMPLOYEES, INC. Case No. 9-RC-1690. August 5,
1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION
On September 3, 1952 , pursuant toa stipulation for certifica-
tiort upon consent election , an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and supervison of the Regional Di-
rector for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the
stipulated unit . Upon the completion of the election , a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties . The tally reveals that of ap-
proximately 950 eligible voters, 803 cast valid ballots , of which
390 were cast for the Petitioner , 396 were cast for the Inter-
venor , and 17 were against both participating labor organiza-
tions . Forty-six ballots were challenged and 2 were void. No
objections to the conduct of the election were filed within the
time provided therefor.
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 October 1, 1952, issued and served upon the parties a
report on challenged ballots . In his report , the Regional Direc-
tor recommended that the challenges to the ballots of Walter
Howard , Norman Endter , Kenneth Walter , John Foster, and
Andrew Gibson be sustained , and that a hearing be held concern-
ing the eligibility status of the voters listed by him in groups I,
III, and IV, as set forth in the report . No exceptions were filed
to the Regional Director ' s recommendations contained therein.
106 NLRB No. 90.
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 31, 1952 , the Boardadoptedthe Regional Director's
recommendations , sustaining the challenges to the ballots of
Howard , Endter, Walter , Foster, and Gibson , and directing that
a hearing be held with respect to the status of the employees
listed in groups I, III, and IV , as set forth in the Regional Di-
rector's report . The Board in its order also granted the re-
quest for intervention filed by counsel for 34 of the challenged
voters and directed the hearing officer to resolve credibility
issues and to make findings of fact and recommendations to the
Board as to the disposition of the challenges.
Thereafter , a hearing was held on November 25, 26, and 28,
1952 , before William E . Rhodes, hearing officer . The Employer,
the Petitioner , the Intervenor, and counsel for the 34 challenged
voters appeared and participated . Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross - examine witnesses , and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded the parties.
On March 4, 1953, in accordance with the Board order, the
hearing officer issued and duly served upon the parties his re-
port , a copy of which is hereto attached . With respect to the
voters in group I, the hearing officer found that Charles
Crosbie , Albert Kadle , John Schmidlin , Howard Callison, T. J.
Willis , Lawrence Gordon , Joseph Brothers , Carl W . Roller,
Walter Clark , Robert Parks, and J. M. Payne were not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act and recommended that the
challenges to their ballots be overruled, and that the latter be
opened and counted . The hearing officer found that Joseph
Loeffler , Lawrence McIntire , Ralph Calhoun , John Weng, Roy
Roach , Clarence Holman, Clifford Wright , Ernest Poole, Arthur
Stoops, Merrill Kunkle , Walter Bunker, Clarence Stultz, Robert
Sintz, Robert Grieb , Theodore McCabe, James Brandle,
William Chatfield , Warren Steele , Clarence Mechlin , Joseph
Hupman, Milton Barrett , Eugene Benbow , Robert Wiegle,
Bernard Lokcinski , and Alvin Dillon, the remaining employees
in this group , were supervisors as defined in the Act, and rec-
ommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained.
The hearing officer also found that Alma Snyder , Ida Pencil,
Mary Byerman , and Rosetta Bushman, who comprised the
voters in group III , were plant clerical employees , a category
excluded from the stipulated unit , and likewise recommended
that the challenges to their ballots be sustained . The hearing
officer further found that Paul Gochenauer , who constituted the
only voter in group IV , was not employed as a guard within the
meaning of the Act and recommended that the challenge to his
ballot be overruled and that it be opened and counted. All
parties, including the challenged voters who were permitted to
intervene , filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's re-
port , and briefs in support of their exceptions.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made at the hearing by
the hearing officer and finds no prejudicial error was com-
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
Peterson].
THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 567
mitted . The rulings are hereby affirmed .: The Board has con-
sidered the hearing officer ' s report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions , and recommendations of the hearing officer,
with the modification set forth below ,3 and makes the following
additional findings:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees at the Employer ' s Springfield,
Ohio, plants constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act:
All production and maintenance employees , including office
and plant janitors , shipping department employees , inside
truckers , truckdrivers , inspectors , setup men not found to be
supervisors in this proceeding , stoker servicemen , and regular
part -time employees , but excluding watchmen, time-keepers,
time-study employees , dispatchers , plant - clerical employees,
2 After the close of the hearing, the representative for certain of the challenged voters
filed with the Board a motion to dismiss this proceeding on the grounds that (a) the hearing
officer's conduct and particularly his action in refusing to grant a postponement, deprived
said voters of their rights under the Act; and (b) the hearing officer issued his report in
defiance of the decree of a State court. With respect to (a) the hearing officer did not abuse
his discretion in refusing to grant a postponement. We find nothing in the record that supports
the contention that the conduct of the hearing by the hearing officer was in any manner
improper As to (b) we find no merit in the contention that the decree of the State court
precluded the hearing officer from issuing his report. See W. J Carter and Brothers,
90 NLRB 2020, 2023, and cases cited therein; Combustion Engineering Company, Inc..
86 NLRB 1264. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.
A motion by the same voters to transfer the record in this proceeding to Case No 9-CB-
178, an unfair labor practice proceeding now pending against the Petitioner, is denied
because the issues involved in the two cases are not the same. Jackson Daily News, 86
NLRB 729
Another motion by counsel for the challenged voters to strike a brief filed by one Willard
Dobbs in behalf of the intervenor likewise is denied. We find it unnecessary in this determina-
tion of the merits of the challenged ballots to pass upon the authority of Dobbs to represent
the Intervenor.
A further request by counsel for the challenged voters to withdraw the challenges to 20
ballots, opposed by the Petitioner, is rejected in view of our adoption of the hearing officer's
findings and conclusions that 15 of these voters were ineligible. As to the remaining 5
challenges, we shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted in accordance with our
findings hereinabove
The Petitioner's request that the election be set aside and a new election directed is denied
because it is lacking in merit.
3 We correct the following inadvertence in the hearing officer's findings, which does not
affect the validity of his ultimate conclusions nor our concurrence therein The hearing
officer's finding on page 18 that "Chilton Gano testified that Bagford sets up the Gleason
spiral bevels," should read: "Gano testified that Wiegle sets up the Gleason spiral bevels,"
etc.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
detailers , engineering and drafting employees , nurses, experi-
mental employees who are not engaged in production work,
office clerical , administrative and salaried employees , tempo-
rary employees, salesmen, superintendents , assistant super-
intendents , foremen , assistant foremen, group leaders, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region shall , pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
Board , within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count these ballots, and serve upon the parties a
supplemental tally of ballots , including therein the count of
these challenged ballots.]
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT ON CHALLENGED BALLOTS
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election dated August 15, 1952, an
election under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the
Board, was conducted on September 3, 1952, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region of
the Board, hereinafter called the Regional Director. The tally of ballots disclosed the follow-
ing results:
Approximate number of eligible voters 950
Void ballots 2
Votes cast for the Petitioner 390
Votes cast for the Intervenor 396
Votes case against participating labor organizations 17
Valid votes counted 803
Challenged ballots 46
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots 849
The counting and tabulating of the ballots at the election were fairly and accurately done.
Copies of the tally of ballots and certificate of conduct of the election, duly executed by official
observers of the Company, Petitioner and the Intervenor have been received in evidence as
Board's Exhibits IF and 1G. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed.
Inasmuch as the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election, the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of the challenges and on
October 1, 1952, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots. The
aforementioned report on challenged ballots issued by the Regional Director divided the
challenged ballots into four groups.
Group I consists of 36 employees who werechallenged either by Petitioner or Intervenor on
the ground that said employees were supervisors.
Group II consists of five employees who were challenged by the Board agent because their
names did not appear on the eligibility list.
Group III consists of four employees who were challenged either by the Petitioner or In-
tervenor on the ground that they were factory clerical employees, an excluded category, and
therefore not eligible to vote in the election.
Group IV consists of an employee who was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that
he is a guard and therefore was not an eligible employee.
The Regional Director's report recommended to the Board that the challenges to the ballot
of Walter Howard, Norman Endter, Kenneth Walter, John Foster, and Andrew Gibson, the
employees in group II, be sustained, and that a hearing be held to determine the status of the
employees listed in groups I, III, and IV.
During the course of the investigation on challenged ballots on September 17, 1952, Attorney
Aaron J. Halloran submitted a letter to the Regional Director requesting permission to inter-
vene on the ground that he represented 34 of the challenged voters. The Regional Director
referred the request for intervention to the Board. No exceptions were filed by any of the
parties to the Regional Director's report.
THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 569
In an order dated October 31,1952, a copy of which has been received in evidence as Board's
Exhibit 1C, the Board ordered that the request for intervention on behalf of the challenged
voters be granted . The Board further ordered that the challenges to the ballot of Walter
Howard, Norman Endter , Kenneth Walter , John Foster, and Andrew Gibson be sustained; that
a hearing be held with respect to the status of the employees listed in groups I, III, and IV as
set forth in the Regional Director 's report and that the hearing officer designated for the pur-
pose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report
containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses , findings of fact and recommendations to
the Board as to the disposition of said objections.
Pursuant to a notice , a hearing was conducted at Springfield , Ohio , on November 24, 25, 26,
and 28 before the undersigned hearing officer . The Company , the Petitioner , the Intervenor,
and the challengees were all represented by counsel.' All parties were offered full opportunity
to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence relating to
the issues involved.
At the close of the hearing counsel for all parties waived oral argument . Parties were in-
formed concerning their right to file written briefs . Written briefs were filed by the Company,
Petitioner , and the challengees . Briefs have been given the fullest consideration in the prepa-
ration of this report.
The following findings of fact , conclusions of law, and recommendation are based on the
entire record in the case and upon the undersigned 's observation of the witnesses.
THE COMPANY
The Company ships from the State of Ohio to points outside the State of Ohio goods valued
in excess of $100 ,000 per year. The Company is engaged in defense work.
Chilton J . Gano is vice president and plant manager of the Company . Directly under Mr.
Gano are two superintendents , Mr. Jack Spencer , superintendent of machines , and Mr. Elwood
Murray, superintendent of assembly . Chilton J. Gano testified that on the day shift there
were 19 foremen and 3 assistant foremen , and the night shift there was a general foreman
and 3 department foremen.
FINDINGS 2
A. Group I
Joseph Loeffler : Loeffler 's superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and
his immediate supervisors are Foreman Rodney F. Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell
McKee . He sets up grinders and assists the operators in department 170, on the night shift,
in their work . The employees in the department receive their various work assignments by
referring to a job sheets which has been prepared by the production department for both the
day and night shifts . If the job on the sheet has been completed , or for some other reason can
not be run , then Loeffler assigns the man to another job . Loeffler knows after he gets the
first-piece inspector 's report whether the parts are coming through properly . After he gets
the report from the inspector , and if there is anything wrong with the operation of the machine,
he will check the machine and attempt to repair or correct it. He continually checks to see
that the parts are correctly coming through the machine , as it is his responsibility that the
machine properly produces the parts.
Lawrence McIntire : His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and
his immediate supervisors are Foreman Errol Wolfe and Assistant Foreman Jack Stegall.
There are 15 employees in this department . McIntire does no production work . Each morning
McIntire receives a job sheet. He then canvasses the employees in his department to determine
what jobs are open . The employee 's name is written down and the exact time that he anticipates
employee will complete a job. With this information he goes to the foreman , and from the job
sheet the foreman sets out the jobs that the employees are to do on prints . The prints, with
'Samuel A. McCray, Esquire, Theodore J. Vradalis . Esquire, Harvey Rector , Esquire,
succeeded Attorney Halloran as representative of the challengees.
2 The findings here made are based mostly on a composite testimony of all witnesses
presented.
3The job sheet is also called the "hot sheet" or "critical sheet." It names the part
number that is needed and the quantity , but it does not name the person that is to do the
job.
57 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the operator's name on them, are distributed to the operators by McIntire. Wolfe has two
other' departments besides Mclntire's. Whenever any operator has difficulty in his work
McIntire assists hum. McIntire first attempts to determine the difficulty; if he is unsuccessful
he than goes to the foreman. McIntire also instructs new operators. Assistant Foreman Stegal,
as part of his duties, is a setup man in one of Foreman Wolfe's other departments.
Ralph Calhoun: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is
under the immediate supervision of Foreman Rodney Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell
McKee. Calhoun sets up jobs or assists in setting up jobs for eleven employees in his depart-
ment. Every morning Calhoun receives the "hot" or job sheet from the assistant foreman
and from the sheet he assigns jobs to employees in the department. Whenever an operator
runs out of work, Calhoun assigns him additional work from the job sheet. At various times
odd jobs come into the department which are not listed on the job or "hot" sheet and Calhoun
assigns the various jobs to an employee in his department. Whenever the employees rwi into
trouble, he assists them. If he cannot first correct the trouble, he goes to the assistant fore-
man. Calhoun seldom performs any production work; he watches the other employees to see
if a particular job is completed, and it is his responsibility to see that the jobs on the "hot"
sheet are completed.
John Weng: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his im-
mediate supervisors are Foreman Rodney Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell McKee. He
sets up jobs and assists 12 machine operators in his department. Whenever these operators
run into difficulty with their job they go to Weng and he assists them. Weng first attempts to
correct any difficulty that an operator reports that he is having and if he is unsuccessful he
then goes to the assistant foreman. Itis his responsibility to see that the work on the machines
is done correctly. Before anyone borrows tools in Weng's department they first go to him. In
addition to Weng's department Meade has approximately 4 other departments. Meade spends
approximately 10 to 15 minutes a day in Weng's department. Weng receives the job sheet
from the foreman or assistant foreman and he works from the sheet in setting up the work on
the different machines. When a job is finished on any one machine, Weng refers to the job
sheet as to what job is to be done next.
Roy Roach: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his im-
mediate supervisor is Foreman Carl Bagford. Roach sets up and assists in the setting up of
jobs for approximately 16 operators in his department. Whenever an operator runs into diffi-
culty with his job he goes to Roach, and if Roach can't determine the problem he then goes to
the foreman. It is Roach's responsibility to make sure that the work coming off the machine
is properly checked for quality. He does no production work. He gives permission for the
employees in his department to leave the building. He assigns work in the department from the
work or job sheet provided him by the foreman.
Clarence Holman: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly, and
his immediate supervisor is Leo Morris. Holman works on the night shift, and Foreman
Morris remains on this shift only a short time. Holman sets up and assists 4 machine opera-
tors in his department. If an operator wants to leave the department Holman issues him a
pass4 Before Morris leaves the department he calls Holman and the 4 other men in the de-
partment together and tells them what is to be done that night. If a man finishes a particular
job and doesn't know what to do, he would go to Holman and find out what machine he is to
operate. Holman spends approximately 50 percent of his time working or operating a machine.
Charles Crosbie: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly. His
immediate supervisor is Foreman Paul Ingleman. Crosby's entire duties are spent in the
building of a transmission for a unit that is later to be approved by the Government. In
building the transmission he makes tools so that the parts will go together and he sets the
parts up. At the present time he has one man working with him. At the time of the September
election he worked by himself.5
Clifford Wright: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his
immediate supervisors are Foreman Rodney Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell McKee.
In addition to Wright's department, Meade has approximately 4 other departments. lie em-
ployees in his department get their work assignments by referring to a job sheet that has been
4Gano's testimony that the giving of a pass to go outside the building is not a permissive
job is given no weight. Holman credibly testified that a person can not leave without a slip
and that he puts the person's reason for leaving on the slip.
5 No weight is given to Sherman Voorhees' testimony that 9 or 10 men work with Crosbie.
THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 57 1
posted .6 There are approximately from 15 to 40 employees in his department. Wright sets
up and assists in setting up machines in his department; he instructs the employees when
necessary and also makes sure that the quality of the work coming from the machines, by
counsel with inspection, is being held to a proper quality. Wright's permission must first be
given before any tools can be taken out of his department.
Albert Kadle: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly, and his
immediate supervisor is Foreman William Barkley. Nine employees work in this department.
The majority of Kadle's time is spent on the job of wleding. When, however Foreman Barkley
takes a vacation or is absent for a day,7 Kadle gets the work assignments from Superintendent
Murray or Spencer, and Kadle assigns the work and instructs and assists the ot«nr welders
in the performance of their duties. During Barkley's absence, if the work is not properly done,
he will first attempt to correct it. If he is unsuccessful, he then reports to the superintendent
for advice.
Ernest Poole: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and his
immediate supervisor is Foreman Harry Helfrich. Helfrich is over a total of 4 departments,
and in Poole's department there are approximately 5 employees. Poole spends a very small
amount of his time in doing production work--only when some special occasion arises. Poole
assigns 8 work and instructs the employees in his department. If an employee does not under-
stand how to do a particular job, he goes to Poole to find out the correct way to perform the
job. Whenever an employee runs out of his particular job, he goes to Poole or Helfrich for a
further job assignment.
John Schmidlin:9 His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is
under the immediate supervison of Foreman Carl Rothaar. There are around 30 employees in
his department. A majority of Schmidlin's time is spent making tools and dies. Whenever
Foreman Rothaar is sick, absent for the day, or on vacation, Schmidlin has authority to sign
passes giving permission to employees to leave thedepartment. During the foreman's absence
he apportions and assigns the work that his foreman leaves with him among the other em-
ployees. 10
Arthur Stoops: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he is
under the immediate supervision of Foreman Rodney Meade, and Assistant Foreman Russell
McKee. Chilton Gano testified that Stoops sets up machines in his department and assists
others in his group to setup their machines; that Stoops assigns work under the direction of a
foreman or assistant foreman,11 instructs where instructions are needed and makes sure that
the machines under his care are turning out work to the required specifications.
Merrill Kunkle: His foreman is Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson,.and he is under the im-
mediate supervision of Night Foreman Timmerman. There are about 6 or 7 employees in
Kunkle's department. His duties would be similar to those performed by Clarence Stultz on
the day shift.
Walter Bunker: He is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Paul Ingleman, There
are 12 to 15 employees in his department, filler cap assembly. Bunker assigns other employees
work in his department from a job sheetprovided him by his foreman; he instructs and assists
6More weight is given to Robert Rice's testimony as to how the job is assigned than to
Charles McClure, as Rice works in Wright's department
?During the last year Barkley was absent approximately 1 week.
8John Gaier and William Henkle credibly testified that they receive their work assign-
ments from Poole For clarification, Poole according to the procedures generally followed
by the Company, would receive the job sheet from the foreman and from the sheet assign
the work to the various employees.
9 Incorrectly spelled in the Regional Director's report on challenged ballots as Smidlin.
16 During the last year Rothaar was absent a little over 2 weeks.
11Gano later testified that he meant, by under the direction of the foreman or assistant
foreman that the group leader receives a "hot" sheet, which has been prepared by the
production department The "hot" sheet or job sheet is first given to the superintendent.
He. in turn, meets with the foremen and distributes the sheets to them. The job sheet or
critical sheet is then passed on by the foremen to their group leaders. Gano further explained
that the job in the first place would not be assigned by the group leader, but whenever a
new man or a new job first comes into the department, the initial assignment is made by
the foreman. After the initial assignment the group leader from that time makes the assign-
ment from the job sheet.
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
everyone in his department who does not completely know their jobs. He knows every part of
the assembly work of the different types of filler cap groups. Charles Runyan, the department
grievance man for the Intervenor, testified that he had taken up grievance matters with
Bunker.
Howard Callison: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he
is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Arthur Buzan. There are four employees in
his department. Callison's duties are to heat treat metal in the form that it is presented to
him. He is the oldest man in his department and has the knowledge and capabilities of operating
any piece of equipment in the department. From time to time employees in the department
ask him about the operationofaparticular job, but Callison refers them to the foreman. When-
ever the foreman is not going to be at work the next day he usually marks the ticket, which
shows how a job is to be done. If he should not leave these instructions the employees go to a
file, which has been set up in the department, and from it they determine how a particular
job is to be done.
Clarence Stultz: He is under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Lawrence
Johnson and Assistant Chief Inspector Herman Stevenson. There are approximately 18 em-
ployees in Stultz' department. Stoltz receives the "hot" or job sheet from Johnson and he
assigns the work from it to the different inspectors. Part of the inspectors are chosen to do
the work on the basis of Stultz' knowledge and ability without reference to Johnson's instruc-
tions; the other inspectors are selected to do the work on the basis of previous instructions
from Johnson. Stultz instructs the inspectors as to what work they should do and how they
should do it. Johnson's time that he actually spends in Stultz' department would vary from 1
to 3 hours a day. Subsequent to the September election, around the middle of October, Stultz
signed passes for about 4 days and gave permission to employees in his department to leave
the department and go to another part of the plant. Prior to the September election employees
from other departments got permission from Stultz to come in his department, if Johnson and
Stevenson were not present, but since the election Stoltz has been relieved of this duty by
Johnson and Stevenson.
Robert Sintz: He is under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson,
and Assistant Chief Inspector Herman Stevenson. Chilton Gano testified that Sintz sets up the
necessary methods for inspection; he assists others to do so; he assigns work on the instruc-
tion of his foremen 12 and he will assist and instruct other employees at any time. There are
three other employees in his department. Leo Shartran testified that when he first came to
work in Sintz' department, Chief Inspector Johnson introduced Sintz to him as his new boss
and that Smtz would take care of anything he wanted to know, or if any difficulty arose, Sintz
would take care of it. Sintz has informed employees in his department as to whether or not
they were to work late or overtime.
T. J. Willis or Thearl Willis: He is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry
Sikes. Willis is engaged mainly in general maintenance work, such as sweeping walks, cutting
grass, plumbing work, and taking care of the fire extinguishers. He has from time to time
been given several people to work with him on some chore that may be too big for him to
accomplish alone. 13
Robert Grieb: He is under the immediate supervision of Inspector Lawrence Johnson, and
Assistant Chief Inspector Herman Stevenson. There are 9 inspectors in the department,
4 employees do inspection work on the bench, 5 are floor or roaming inspectors. Grieb's
duties are to instruct other employees in his department and to assist in the setup of inspec-
tion procedures. Each day he receives a job sheet from the foreman. By looking at the part
number on the job sheet Grieb can tell whether it is 1, 11, III, or IV gear. Class I gear would
require the least amount of skill to inspect, and class IV gear would require the most amount
of skill. After determining what gear it is, Grieb assigns the work to the inspector capable
of doing the work. Chief Inspector Johnson originally determined who was capable of inspect-
ing the various classifications of gears. If one of the inspectors claims there is a discrepancy
in the gear according to the blueprint. Grieb reinspects the gear and determines whether
there is any discrepancy, and if he determines there is, makes a record of it and sees that
the record goes to the proper authorities. Grieb also inspects the first piece that comes off
every new job, and when everyone else is busy and there is a special job, he does inspection
12 See footnote 11, supra.
13 No weight is given to Sherman Voorhees' testimony that sometimes Willis has 3 to 5 men
under hint.
THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 573
work . is If any tools or replacements are needed in the department , Grieb requisitions them
from the foreman . If an inspector wants to leave the plant before the regular shift is ended,
Grieb makes arrangements for him to get a pass to leave. Grieb has authority to issue
passes to permit employees from other departments to come into his department.
Lawrence Gordon: His superintendent is Jack Spencer , superintendent of machines, and he
is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Carl Bagford . His sole work duties are the
setting up and operation of a thread grinding machine.15
Theodore McCabe : His superintendent is Jack Spencer , superintendent of machines, and
he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Helfrich . There are approximately
eight employees in his department . McCabe does little production work and he approves
the employees ' time at night . Chilton Gano testified that McCabe sets up the machines; he
assists others in the group to set up machines ; he assigns work under the direction of his
foreman 16 or assistant foreman; instructs where instructions are needed , and he makes
sure that the machines under his care are turning out work to the required specifications.
James Brandle : His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines. He is
under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harold Wolfe and Assistant Foreman John
Stegall. Brandle's duties would be similar to Lawrence Mclntyre's.
William Chatfield : His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and
he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Helfrich . There are approximately
12 to 15 men in his department . Chatfield sets up the boring mills; assists those in the
group to set up their work ; instructs the employees ; assigns work to employees from a job
sheet provided by his foreman ; makes sure that the work is coming through to specifications;
and that the machines are in proper order.
Warren Steele: His superintendent is Jack Spencer , superintendent of machines , his foreman
is Earl Wolfe , and he is under the immediate supervision of William Caldwell, night foreman.
In the whole department there are approximately 45 to 50 men and there are approximately 35
to 40 men in Steele's group . Steelesetsup the machines , instructs , and assists any employees
in his group with their work problems . Steele does no production work himself. He makes
sure that the work coming from the machine stays within the standard with the assistance
of the inspection department . The company bulletin board listed him as line foreman. From
the job sheet that Foreman Wolfe receives , he prepares prints which include the job and
the individual who is to do the job for both the day and night shifts . These prints are then
distributed to the various employees by the individuals classified by the company as group
leaders or setup men. At the beginning of his shift Steele checks the employees on the day
shift to see if there is any work left for the night shift employees and if there does not
appear to be sufficient work Steele hands additional prints to the night shift employees. If
an employee on the night shift runs out of work he goes to Foreman Caldwell for a work
assignment; in Caldwell 's absence he goes to Steele . 17 Steele testified that Caldwell advised
him that whenever it was necessary for him to be absent that he was to be in charge of his
department.
Joseph Brothers : His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and he
is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Helfrich. In Helfrich 's department
there are 50 to 60 men who are divided into different groups . Brothers at one time instructed
and assisted others in setting up their machines and assigned work to them from the job
sheet provided him by the foreman , but prior to the September election and at the date of
the hearing Brothers has been doing bench work . 18 He may from time to time be given 1 or
2 people to work with him. A particular job is brought to Brothers in the form of a print and
the material is sent to him from the stockroom . After the job comes to him Brothers looks
over the print and decides what portion of it can be done in another department . He does
the layout work on the job to show what is needed on a particular piece. After the job has
been divided by Brothers he tells the clerk to make out a travelcard in accordance with
l4Grieb 's testimony that 100 percent of his time is spent in inspection work is given no
weight.
ss No weight is given to the testimony of Nancy Comer, who testified Gordon seemed to be
looking after the jobs of men who worked in her department on the thread machine.
16 See footnote 11, supra.
17Steele 's testimony that he never assigns work is not credited.
18 No weight is given to Harry Sheeley 's testimony that prior to the September election
Brothers worked in a different department than he does at the present time
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the print which lists the sequence of the different departments that the part must go to.
He then has truckers, if the parts are large, or he takes it himself if the parts are small,
to the station of a department. After the job is delivered to the station it is assigned by the
foreman and after the particular job is completed it is returned to Brothers and he checks
to see that the job is done correctly. While waiting for work to return to him Brothers will
be performing various job functions such as small drill work, tapping, etc. When a job is
returned and it is incorrect Brothers first attempts to correct it and if he is unsuccessful
has the clerk make out a red card which lists the defects that Brothers has found, and it is
returned to the station of the department from which it comes. 19 If a part comes back again
after it has received a red card, Brothers then reports to his foreman and receives instruc-
tions as to what he should then do about the particular part.
Carl W. Roller: His superintendent is Jack Spencer. superintendent of machines, and he
is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Helfrich. Roller is an engine lathe
operator . In his department there are two other lathes, both of which are not usually in
operation. If both of them are, however, in operation, Roller would instruct the other operator
on the operation of the machine and try to assist him in turning out the parts.20
Charles Mechlin: He is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Harry Sikes. His
present duties are to see that the heavy machinery is moved and he will instruct and direct
employees in the proper way to move such machinery, e.g., he tells them whether to swing
it one way or the other, where it is to stand, and where and when to stop. Chilton Gano
testified that Mechlin is a very valuable man and one that the Company has considered
moving in the salaried classification, the same as assistant foreman or supervisor.
Joseph Hupman: He is under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Lawrence
Johnson. There are four employees in his department, 409, incoming inspection department.
Ida Pencil testified that Hupman told her what to do. Chilton Gano testified that Hupman's
duties would be similar to those of Merrill Kunkle and Clarence Stoltz.
Milton Barrett: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly, and
he is under the immediate supervision of Foreman Len Lavendar. There are 35 to 40 employees
in his department. Barrett instructs in the methods of assembly; he will instruct and assist
the employees in any problem that arises. Lewis Hinkle testified that both Lavendar and
Barrett assigned work to the employees. and in Lavendar's absence Barrett alone assigns
the work.
Walter Clark: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of assembly; he is
under the immediate supervision of Foreman Paul Ingleman. He is in the stoker department
and there are from 4 to 6 employees in this department. When an employee first begins to
work in the department he is instructed as to his job duties by Clark. Clark is the oldest
man in the department and when a man does not do his work correctly it is corrected by
Clark. The orders for work are placed on a bench in the department and all the men in the
department, including Clark, look through the work and whoever is familiar with the work
gets it out. For approximately 19 years Clark has taken inventory. Murray sets up the
inventory schedule and the time for doing it, when it is to be done, and how. Murray assigns
to Clark the men to work with him. Clark, along with the men designated to take inventory
with him, actually participates in the counting. The inventory is done during the last month
of each year.
Robert Parks: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines; he is under
the immediate supervision of Foreman Earl Wolfe. Parks' principal duties are the making
of carboloy tools, the grinding and repairing of them for the turret lathes, and for the other
departments where these tools are used. He has been in this department for 12 years and he
instructs anyone new coming into the department as to his job duties. At the present time
there are 2 employees in the department. When anyone from another department wants tools
ground they bring them to Parks' department and leave them on a bench and the tools are
ground by Parks and the 2 other men in his department as they get to them. Whenever they
want a tool ground a specified way Parks or the other 2 men are informed.2i
Eugene Benbow: He is under the immediate supervision of Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson
and Assistant Chief Inspector Herman Stevenson. He is in department 405 and there are about
16 employees in this department. Mary J. Byerman testified that Benbow was her supervisor.
19 Another employee may work on the part after it receives a red card
2eNo evidence was introduced by the Petitioner or the Intervenor as to Roller's duties.
21Sherman Voorhees' testimony that Parks never grinds tools is given no weight.
THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 575
She later testified that she considered a supervisor the same as a group leader and that if her
group leader said, "Everyone is busy and there are some pieces come up all right, you
inspect this, why then I would have to inspect it." It is Benbow's responsibility to see that
the work in his department is dispatched to the different departments, that the work gets
out on time and that the work is correct. James Brandel and Lawrence McIntire contact
Benbow, who is a first-piece inspector, as to whether the first part off the machine is
defective and he has the authority to accept or reject the part. As to the amount of routine
inspection work he does, it will depend on how many people are off or how busy the depart-
ment happens to be. All new inspectors in the department are instructed by him. Benbow
has been given the authority to write a pass out by Johnson if an employee wants to leave
the building. If an inspector in his department brings a part to Benbow that the inspector
thinks is defective, and if Benbow agrees, he takes it to the chief inspector or assistant chief
inspector. He has a certain tolerance on whether he can or can not accept a particular part.
Benbow gets a job sheet from Johnson and assigns the work to the different inspectors in the
department from it. If an inspector does not understand his work Benbow tries to explain it
to him. If Benbow is unsuccessful in determining the difficulty he then contacts the chief
inspector or assistant chief inspector.
Robert Wiegle: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines; his foreman
is Carl Bagford, and he is under the immediate supervision of Harold Baker, night foreman.
There are around 20 employees in Wiegle's department. Chilton Gano testified that Bagford
sets up the Gleason spiral bevels, generators and grinders, assists and instructs the other
employees in this department, assigns work to the employees under the direction of his
foreman, and that as he works on the second shift there is very seldom any change of work
in that department during the night. 22
Bernard Lokcinski: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines, and
his immediate supervisors are Foreman Rodney Meade and Assistant Foreman Russell
McKee. There are approximately 15 operators in Lokcroski's department. He operates a
machine whenever an operator calls him over and tells him it isn't running right and then
he goes over and sees what the trouble is. He assists in setting up and sets up the machines
for the other operators in the department if the operator is not qualified to set up the machine
for himself; he instructs the operators on the machine. He receives a "hot" or job sheet
from McKee, assistant foreman. In addition to Lokcinski's department McKee has approxi-
mately 4 other departments, and will spend at the most 1 hour in Lokcinski's department.
After Lokcinski receives the job sheet he assigns the work to the various operators from
it. 23 If an operator's work is defective or improper Lokcinski checks to see if he can correct
it, but if he is unsuccessful he goes to the foreman or assistant foreman. If a job which
comes off the machine is improper and Lokcinski sees that the job can not be run after
the machine has been set up, the job automatically goes off the machine and Lokcinski
reports this fact to the assistant foreman. If a man finishes a particular job on one machine
Lokcinski takes the next job from the "critical" sheet and assigns it to the operator. 24
Lokcroski testified that at the prior election he told the Board agent that he was in charge
of 15 employees.
J. M. Payne: His superintendent is Elwood Murray, superintendent of machines. His
immediate supervisor is Foreman Leo Morris. Around February 1952 Payne took sick and
was absent from work until the latter part of June 1952. Since that time he has worked on a
part-time basis doing light bench work, which is sheet metal layout.25 The foreman will
bring a particular drawing over to the work bench before the operation is started. The
foreman will check the drawing with Payne or whoever is working with him. At the time
of the hearing there was one other employee working at the bench besides Payne. Morris
22 Sherman Voorhees testimony without contradiction that Foreman Francis Smith of the
gleason department introduced Wiegle to him as his supervisor at night.
23Lokcinski's testimony that the assistant foreman. McKee, first tells him, after he gives
him the job sheet, what part to give to a particular machine is not credited
Z4Lokcinski's testimony that he must first contact his foreman or assistant foreman before
assigning the job is not credited.
25 Superintendent Gano's testimony that Payne also sets up brakes or any other special
job that does not have standard tooling apparently is erroneous as Payne credibly testified
that these were his duties prior to February 1952, but since his return in the latter part
of June 1952 his work has been confined solely to his bench
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
will then issue a requisition for the particular metal required from the stockroom. The
stockroom, in return, brings the metal over to the shear department, the metal is sheared
and then Payne, or whoever is working with him, will start their operation. Payne is the
oldest employee in the department and he will assist and instruct any other employee doing
his type of work.
Alvin Dillon: His superintendent is Jack Spencer, superintendent of machines; his foreman
is Carl Bagford,26 and he is under the immediate supervision of Harold Baker, night foreman.
There are approximately 20 employees in this department. Chilton Gano testified that Dillon
sets up Fellowes gear shaper machines, repairs them for the next job, instructs the operators,
and he assigns the work to the machines according to the direction of the foreman. ZT
All the challenges in group I are hourly rated employees. Chilton Gano, however, testified
that several admitted foremen or assistant foremen were also hourly paid.
All the challenges in group I are classified 320 with the exception of Ernest Poole, Charles
Mechlin, Charles Crosbie, and John Schmidlin. Poole and Mechlin are classified 335 and
Crosbie and Schmidlin are classified 330.
Chilton Gano testified that classification 320 covers setup men, leadmen or group leaders,
and employees because of their particular ability or skill in operation of a particular machine;
that the leadman or group leader is practically synonymous with a setup man, both do the
same chores, with the exception that a setup man covers machinery; group leaders or leadmen
cover process or assembly, which is another form of process. Gano further testified that
classification 335 covers assistant supervisors or foremen, and some few people who through
extreme ability and long service developed worth to the Company equivalent to that of an
assistant supervisor or foreman and that classification 330 covers tool and die makers.
However, whether or not supervisory authority exists must be determined by an examination
of the duties and responsibilities attached to a particular job category of employees. 28
Testimony was offered to show that some of the challenges in group I voted in a prior
Board ordered election the latter part of 1947. The fact, however, that an employee was
permitted to vote in a representation election is not determinative of the employee's status
as a nonsupervisory employee. 29
Over objections of the challengees and the Company, testimony for the most part was
denied as to the duties of certain employees not challenged, whose duties it was contended
were similar to the challenges in group I. This contention in effect constitutes a post-election
challenge to the vote of the employees. Under established policy of the Board and the courts,
such a challenge may nor be entertained.9D
The undersigned finds none of the challenges in group I have the authority to hire,transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, award or discipline other employees, or to
effectively recommend such action.
The undersigned further finds that none of the employees with the exception of Walter
Bunker have the authority to adjust employees' grievances or to effectively recommend
such action.
John Weng testified he told his foreman that if he wanted to get a job out, somebody
besides Schmidt, the employee in question, would have to be put on the lob, because Schmidt
had only worked 3 days out of 2 weeks. After this discussion Schmidt was later taken from
Weng's department. The record, however, does not show whether Schmidt, the employee
in question, was discharged, quit or transferred to another department. Too, even if it could
be construed that Weng effectively recommended the discharge or transfer of the employee
in question, a single recommendation is not enough for a basis that an employee exercises
supervisory authority under the Act. ai
Clarence Holman testified that if an employee would not do a job that was assigned to him,
he would tell the plant superintendent, but that such an occasion had never arisen. As Holman
has never reported to a higher authority that a man is not performing his duties correctly,
it cannot now be determined how effectively his recommendations would be.
i6Bagford remains in the department only a short time after the night shift begins.
27Dillon's testimony as to his duties is not credited. See footnote 11, supra.
26 See William C Meredith Co., Inc , 74 NLRB 1064.
Z9See Valentine Sugars, Inc , 102 NLRB 313.
3OSee N. L. R B. v. A. J. Tower Company, 329 U S 324: John Deere Killefer Company,
86 NLRB 1073.
Si See General Motors Corporation, 78 NLRB 72.
THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 577
Charles McClurg testified, without contradiction, that at the September election Mechlin,
when asked by the Board agent, Maxwell, if he could hire certain people, replied, "Yes,
in certain skills." When he needed a certain skilled man and knew where there was one,
he could hire him. When Maxwell asked him to give her a reference, Mechlin said, "If I
knew where there was a block layer--and I knew where one was, I could hire him." 'Ilse
Board agent asked Mechlin if he could discharge an employee who proved unsatisfactory.
Mechlin replied, "Well. I guess I could." The above hearsay and conjectural testimony
can support no finding that an individual can hire and fire an employee.
David Tritch testified that Clarence Stultz related to him a conversation that Stultz had
with Chief Inspector Johnson, at which time Johnson asked Stultz if Tritch's work warranted
a raise, and that Stultz replied, "Tritch's work was good and he should have a raise," that
Stultz then told Tritch that his raise should come through in the next 2 weeks. It appears
from the above testimony that Stultz was not recommending a raise , but was merely giving
his opinion as to Tritch's work qualities in response to an inquiry by a supervisor. 32
Walter Clark testified that an employee needed more money and inquired of him how he
would go about getting a raise ; that he suggested that the employee see Joe Runyan, the
grievance man, and that the employee asked him to see Runyan for him; that he said to
the employee that if he spoke to Runyan he would speak for himself; that he spoke to Runyan
about the employee's raise and Runyan suggested that he speak to Superintendent Murray;
that Clark being an older man Murray would listen to him. Clark further testified he didn't
speak to Murray, but the employee received a raise. The above testimony only shows that
Clark, being an older employee, was merely aiding a fellow employee and that the employee
received his raise without Clark ever contacting the supervisor.
Charles Runyan testified that he asked Superintendent Murray if he would listen to Bunker
and Clark in regard to raises and Murray stated he would listen to them. Runyan further
testified that this was as far as he ever got with Superintendent Murray on hiring and firing.
The fact that a supervisor will listen to an employee as to whether another employee-should
be granted a raise does not establish an effective recommendation.
Bernard Lokcinski testified that if an operator is not performing a job according to
directions, he reports this fact to the assistant foreman or foremen, but this is all he has
to say in the matter. The above testimony does not establish effective recommendations
as to the discipline of employees.
The undersigned finds on the basis of their duties as set out above that Charles Crosbie,
Albert Kadle, John Schmidlin, Howard Callison, T. J. Willis, Lawrence Gordon, Joseph
Brothers, Carl W. Roller, Walter Clark, Robert Parks, and J. M. Payne do not have the
authority to assign or responsibly direct other employees, or to effectively recommend
such action.
The duties that Albert Kadle and John Schmidlin perform during their foremen's absence
are too infrequent and sporadic to find that they assign or responsibly direct other employees,
or effectively recommend such action.33
Although Walter Clark instructs new employees when they come into the department and
corrects their work if done incorrectly, Robert Parks instructs new employees when they
come into the department and J. M. Payne will assist and instruct new employees working
with him, the record established that practically all of their time is spent in performing
the same types of work as employees who work with them perform. Their relationship to
the employees working with them would appear to be similar to that of a master craftsman
to an apprentice.
The undersigned also finds on the basis of their duties, as set out above, that Joseph
Loeffler, Lawrence McIntire, Ralph Calhoun, John Weng, Roy Roach, Clarence Holman,
Ernest Poole, Arthur Stoops, Merrill Kunkle, Clarence Stoltz, Robert Sintz, Robert Grieb,
Theodore McCabe, James Brandle, William Chatfield, Warren Steele, Joseph Hupman,
Milton Barrett, Eugene Benbow, Robert Wiegle, Bernard Lokcinski, and Alvin Dillon have
the authority to assign and responsibly direct other employees and the exercise of such
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature , but requires the use of independent
judgment. as
aSee also General Motors Corporation, supra.
33See American Window Glass Company, 77 NLRB 1030. Forney Engineering Company,
88 NLRB 204. Puerto Rico Glass Company, 101 NLRB 1347.
84See Tidewater Associated Oil Company, 101 NLRB 570; Ohio Power Company, 176 F
2d 385; Budd Manufacturing Company, 169 F. 2d 57.
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned further finds on the basis of their duties as set out above , that Clifford
Wright and Charles Mechlin have the authority to responsibly direct other employees and
the exercise of such authority is not of a routine or clerical nature and requires the use of
independent judgment. 38
The undersigned further finds on the basis of his duties as set out above that Walter Bunker
has the authority to assign , responsibly direct other employees , and to discuss their griev-
ances, and the exercise of such authority is not of a routine or clerical nature, but requires
the use of independent judgment. 38
B. Group III
Alma A. Snyder: This employee types, files blueprints and the written reports that the
inspectors make out, and issues requisitions for supplies- for the inspection department.
After a part has been rejected by an inspector she takes the part, writes it up on a reject
form which shows that it has been scrapped. si
Ida Pencil: This employee keeps a record of all material that comes through the receiving
department. After an inspector inspects a part they give her an inspection report to file.
From the part she gets the part numbers and types up a report for material certification.
She types up and files any records that are necessary to be made on a particular part. Miss
Pencil testified that no other person in her department does the same type of work that she
does; that the inspectors inspect and she takes care of the paper work.
Mary Byerman: This employee takes a part that has been rejected by an inspector and
makes a scrap ticket on it. After rejection of the part has been approved she discards it.
She takes all "A" and "B" parts and makes and keeps a record of them; she files blue-
prints. When there is an inspection job to be done and there are no other inspectors avail-
able, which is a rare occasion, she has been asked to inspect a particular part.
Rosetta Brinkman: This employee keeps a record of all parts that come in and go out of
the department. She keeps a, record of the tardiness and absenteeism of the operators. She
does not keep a record of or handle any parts that have been rejected by the inspectors.38
The undersigned further finds that on the basis of the duties set out above that Alma
Snyder, Ida Pencil, Mary Byerman, and Rosetta Brinkman, all assigned job classification 95,
inspectors second class, are primarily clerical employees. 39
C. Group IV
Paul Gochenauer: Gochenauer's principal dunes are general maintenance work such as
painting, plumbing, and, upon rare occasions, electrical work. He performs guard duty
strictly on emergency basis, and while a regular guard was off sick for 2 weeks during 1952
Gochenauer substituted for him. During the last year Gochenauer spent about 6 weeks in all
in the performance of guard duties.40
On the basis of his duties set out above Paul Gochenauer is engaged primarily in maintenance
work. The Board has held in a long series of cases that to be a guard within the meaning of
the Act, an employee must spend more than 50 percent of his time in work that conforms to
the statutory description. 41
35 See Ohio Power Company, supra; Budd Manufacturing Company, supra.
36 See Iowa Public Service Company, 102 NLRB 1667; Tidewater Associated Oil Company,
supra; Ohio Power Company, supra Budd Manufacturing Company, supra.
3 Chief Inspector Lawrence Johnson testified that Alma Snyder spends 50 percent of her
time inspecting. However, it is clear by his later testimony that he considers the job of
inspection, the taking of a part that has been rejected by an inspector and writing it up on
a rejection form.
3s Chief Inspector Johnson's testimony that except for one-half hour a day, the time required
to record absenteeism, Brinkman performed direct manual inspection work, not salvage work,
is not credited.
39See W. C. Norris Manufacturer, Inc., 73 NLRB 838.
40 Guard duties performed were to stand at the plant gate and check employees' badges,
and have the employees sign a register before they enter the plant and to see that on leaving
the plant an employee does not punch out another's timecard.
4i See Wiley Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 40.
THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 579
CONCLUSIONS
Group I
The undersigned finds that Charles Crosbie, Albert Kadle,john Schmidlin, Howard Callison,
T. J. Willis, Lawrence Gordon, Joseph Brothers,CarlW. Roller, Walter Clark, Robert Parks,
and J. M. Payne are not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.'
The undersigned further finds that Joseph Loeffler, Lawrence McIntire, Ralph Crlhoun,
John Weng, Roy Roach, Clarence Holman, Clifford Wright, Ernest Poole, Arthur Stoops,
Merill Kunkle, Walter Bunker, Clarence Stultz, Robert Sintz, Robert Grieb, Theodore
McCabe, James Brandle, William Chatfield, Warren Steele, Clarence Mechlin, Joseph
Hupman, Milton Barrett, Eugene Benbow, Robert Wiegle, Bernard Lokcinski, and Alvin
Dillon are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
In reaching my conclusion as to the above group of employees, the undersigned is not
unmindful of Steel Products Engineering Company, 76 NLRB 318, in which the Board held
that leadmen and group leaders were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and
included them together with setup men in the bargaining unit, but the present record shows
that this is not now the situation as to all of the employees in that classification.
Group III
The undersigned further finds that Alma Snyder, Ida Pencil, Mary Byerman, and Rosetta
Brinkman are factory clerical employees.
Group IV
The undersigned further finds that Paul Gochenauer is not a guard within the meaning of the
Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon all the foregoing , the undersigned recommends that the challenges to the ballots of
Charles Crosbie, Albert Kadle, John Schmidlm, Howard Callison, T. J. Willis, Lawrence
Gordon, Joseph Brothers, Carl W. Roller, Walter Clark, Robert Parks, J. M. Payne, and
Paul Gochenauer be overruled and that their ballots be opened, counted, and as a result
thereof, included in a revised tally of ballots.
Upon all the foregoing, the undersigned further recommends that challenges to the ballots
of Joseph Loeffler, Lawrence McIntire, Ralph Calhoun, John Weng, Roy Roach, Clarence
Holman, Clifford Wright, Ernest Poole, Arthur Stoops, Merrill Kunkle, Walter Bunker,
Clarence Stultz, Robert Sintz, Robert Grieb, Theodore McCabe, James Brandle, William
Chatfield, Warren Steele , Charles Mechlin, Joseph Hupman, Milton Barrett, Eugene Benbow,
Robert Wiegle, Bernard Lokcinski, Alvin Dillon, Alma Snyder, Ida Pencil, Mary Byerman,
and Rosetta Brinkman be sustained.
Any party may, within ten (10) days from receipt of this report, file with the Board in
Washington, D. C., an original and 6 copies of exceptions. Immediately upon filing of such
exceptions the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties
and shall file a copy with the Regional Director, Ninth Region.
42Section 2 (11) of the Act states: "The term 'supervisor' means any individual having
authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them or
to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with
the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment "
322615 0 - 54 - 38 -