Thompson, Weinman and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 301 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

THOMPSON, WEINMAN AND CO AND PAGA MINING CO . 301
i
in any event, be severed 6 Finally, even assuming that the remaining
maintenance men could qualify as craftsmen in the trades in which
they work and could therefore constitute an appropriate unit, there is
no showing that the Petitioner is the traditional representative for
such crafts 7 In these circumstances, we grant the motions of the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor, and we shall dismiss the petition
[The Board dismissed the petition ]
s Louis F Dow Company, 111 NLRB 609, 610
4 Union Steam Pump Company, supra American Potash & Chemical Corporation,
107 I`LRB 1418
Thompson , Weinman and Company and Paga Mining Company
and United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No 10-RC-4466 Novem-
ber 23, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Stephen D Rise, hearing
officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection With
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Jenkins]
Upon the entnxe record in this case, the Board finds
1 The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act
2 The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employers
3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
4 The Petitioner seeks a single unit comprising all production and
maintenance employees of both companies The Employers, while
conceding that the unit described in the petition is appropriate, con-
tend that there should be separate units for each company because
each is a separate entity, engaged in the production of different
products, and because there is little interchange of employees between
the companies
The record indicates that Thompson, Weinman and Company owns
all of the stock of Paga Mining Company and that both corporations
have the same officers Although separate payrolls, accounting, and
financial statements are maintained for the two companies, they share
125 NLRB No 32
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the same general office and office staffs and, while the two companies
have separate employees and different equipment, they have a common
production manager, who divides his time about equally between the
two operations. Thompson, Weinman and Company is engaged in the
grinding of extender and filler pigment products. Paga Mining Com-
pany is engaged in the mining, processing, and pulverizing of barytes
ore. The construction crew of Paga Mining Company handles all
construction work for both companies and, although its employees are
paid on the mining company's payroll, payment for the services
involved is adjusted in the accounting department. The electrical
department and machine shop of Thompson, Weinman and Company
does maintenance work for both companies. The two companies also
share the services of a carpenter and a storeroom man. The major
operations of each company are approximately 3 miles apart.
In view of their common ownership, supervision and control over
labor relations, the proximity of the two operations, their joint use
of maintenance facilities and services, and the interchange of person-
nel and equipment, we find that Thompson, Weinman and Company
and Paga Mining Company constitute a single employer for purposes
of collective bargaining and that a single unit comprising the em-
ployees of both companies is appropriate.'
The parties do not agree as to the supervisory status of certain
individuals.
Superintendent of black aslt plant: This individual is in sole charge
of an ore grinding plant, which is physically separated from other
facilities of the Employer, where he assigns and directs the work of
four employees. He is directly responsible to the Employer's produc-
tion manager. He processes grievances, grants time off, and effectively
recommends wage increases. Accordingly, we find that he is a super-
visor within the meaning of the act.
Electrical department foreman: The Employer contends that this
employee is in complete charge of its electrical department. The
record indicates, however, that he was never told that he was a fore-
man, that he does not direct the work of two generator men assigned
to the electrical department, that he spends all his working time in
the performance of manual electrical maintenance work, that he is
paid on an hourly basis, and that he is assisted regularly by one helper.
Although he did recommend the employment of his helper he does not
normally make effective recommendations relating to personnel action.
We find that this employee does not possess any of the indicia of super-
visory status and that the direction exercised by him is that of a more
experienced worker over a less experienced person. Accordingly, we
include him in the bargaining unit.'
'Threads-Incorporated, 121 NLRB 1507.
'Vernon Calhoun Packing Company, Inc., 117 NLRB 104; United States Gypsum
Company, 121 NLRB 370.
THOMPSON, WEINMAN AND CO. AND PAGA MINING CO. 303
Machine shop foreman: This employee, like the electrical shop
foreman, was never informed that he was a foreman. He has never
hired, discharged, transferred, or promoted any employees or made
recommendations with respect to such personnel action and was un-
aware that any such power was reposed in him. All of his working
time is spent in the actual physical performance of the work of his
trade, in which he is assisted by another machinist and a welder. He
is hourly paid and his wage is not substantially higher than that of
his assistants. In the performance of his maintenance duties he re-
ceives detailed instructions from the production manager and the
supervisors in whose departments he may be working. The direction
he exercises is technical and of the sort normally exercised by the
more-experienced over the less-experienced employees. We therefore
find that the machine shop foreman is not a supervisor and include him
in the bargaining unit.
The Petitioner would include in the bargaining unit two watchmen
employed by Paga Mining Company. The Employers take no posi-
tion with respect to these employees. These watchmen look after two
ore washers which are physically separated from the principal plant
in order to protect them from fire and vandalism. They are not armed,
uniformed, or deputized. They do some oiling and greasing when
time permits and regularly notify the generator men at the Thompson,
Weinman plant when they are to shut off their pumps. Although
they sometimes spend as much as half of their time servicing trucks,
their principal duty is plant protection. We find that the watchmen
are guards within the meaning of the Act, and we exclude them from
the unit.3
The Employers would include in, and the Petitioner would exclude
from, the unit a part-time employee who is a student and the son of
the superintendent of the white goods department. During the sum-
mer months this individual works full time for Thompson, Weinman
and Company. In the winter months when school is in session he has
no regular, fixed working schedule. The Employers state that he may
work as much as he wants to and as much as his studies permitted.
The Employers were unable to state how much time this employee
would work each week but did state that whenever he wished to work
they would make a place for him. In the circumstances, and in ac-
^cordance with our policy of including only regular, part-time em-
ployees in bargaining units, we shall exclude him from the unit
because of the intermittent, irregular, and indefinite nature of his
employment .4
The parties do not agree on the voting eligibility of certain laid-off
employees. On July 27, 1959, the Employers discontinued operation
3 Armstrong Cork Company , South Gate Plant, 117 NLRB 262.
'Dixie Wax Paper Company, 117 NLRB 548.
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of 2 ore-washers and laid off 23 employees of Paga Mining Company.
It appears from the record that in December 1958 one of the Em-
ployers' largest purchasers of ground barytes terminated its contract
for 1958 and 1959 and it was subsequently arranged to extend delivery
of the tonnage contracted for over a 3-year period. This represented
a 60 percent decline in the 1959 sales of the product and necessitated
the stockpiling of 90 percent of the ore mined during the past year.
The Employers state that it does not anticipate an increase in the
requirements of the two customers which account for 90 percent of
Paga's production, within the next 2 or 3 years.
Although the Employer's do not have a seniority system, there is
testimony to the effect that laid-off employees usually are, and will
be, recalled before new employees are hired in the event that business
conditions improve. The Employers do not expect business to im-
prove within the next 2 to 3 years and it submitted evidence that the
entire industry is experiencing a slack period. Since the record does
not indicate a definite prospect of improved business conditions which
would warrant recall of the laid-off employees in the near future,
we find that the laid-off employees have no reasonable expectancy of
reemployment within the foreseeable future and that they, accord-
ingly, are ineligible to vote in the election directed herein.'
We find that the following employees of the Employers 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 of Thompson, Weinman
and Company and of the Paga Mining Company at their Cartersville,.
Georgia, operations, including leadermen, laboratory employees, con-
struction employees, janitors, and all mine employees, including
employees employed at processing and pulverizing plants, truck-
drivers, and storeroom employees, but excluding all office clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, full-time foremen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 L. & S. Machine Company, Inc., 121 NLRB 266.
Crookston Times Printing Company and John R. Kelly, Attorney
for Employees . Case No. 18-CA-979. November 04, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 18, 1959, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had granted
125 NLRB No. 38. i