United States Gypsum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 416 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since the unfair labor practices herein found to have been committed by the
Respondent disclose a willful opposition to the fundamental purposes of the Act
and evidence an intent to interfere generally with the rights of employees which
are guaranteed by the Act, the preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted
unless the remedial recommendations are coextensive with the threat. Therefore it
will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local No. 4, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
26 employees named herein, thereby discouraging membership in and activity on
behalf of the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
3. All lithographic production employees at the Respondent's Chicago, Illinois,
plant, including offset pressmen, offset pressmen helpers and feeders and their
apprentices, offset strippers, offset spotters and opaquers, offset cameramen, offset
platemakers and apprentices and trainees, pasteup men, lithographic artists, film
filer and negative storage men, but excluding lithographic typists and stock handlers,
office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The above-named labor organization was on May 24, 1956, and at all times
since has been the exclusive representative of all of the employees in the said unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain with the aforesaid Union, on and after September 19,
1956, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. By discharging Leon Blumberg the Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
United States Gypsum Company and General Teamsters Union,
Local No . 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case No. 7-RC-4100. August 10, 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 James P. Kurtz, hear-
ing 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
124 NLRB No. 49.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 417
member' panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers. and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 2.- The labor organization' involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c)^(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4'. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, testers, guards, watchmen, pro-
fessional and administrative employees, and all supervisors as- defined
in the Act.' While the Employer and the Petitioner agree that a pro-
duction and maintenance unit is appropriate, they disagree with re-
spect to the unit placement of certain employee classifications dis-
cussed below.
The lead mechanic, maintenance, is in charge of a crew of six me-
chanics. He directs this crew in the repair of machinery, trucks, and
electrical equipment. He is directly responsible for the safety, in-
struction, and training of the six employees. Although there is a
supervisor over the lead mechanic, he exercises his own judgment in
assigning members of his crew to both routine and nonroutine repair
jobs throughout the Employers' plant. The Employer has delegated
to the lead mechanic authority to recommend promotion, suspension,
and recall of all mechanics assigned to him and he has effectively
exercised this authority.
The machinemen direct four-man crews consisting of a mixerman,
paperhanger, edgeman, and ; stuccoman. The machinemen do not
themselves operate machines; they coordinate the work of their crew
members. They are responsible to shift foreman for the proper func-
tioning of their crews, including direction of crew members as to
quality of performance, economic operation of machinery, and safety.
Machinemen have power to reprimand their crew employees and to
settle their minor grievances. Moreover, the machinemen exercise
their own judgment in making recommendations, which are effective,
as to promotion of their crew members to higher pay grades.
The employees in the classifications discussed above, although hour-
ly paid as are the members of their crews, receive more compensation
than the highest paid employee in their crews. They exercise au-
thority effectively to recommend changes in the status of employees
'The parties agree, and the record shows , that warehouse foremen, maintenance fore-
men, and shift foremen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we
exclude them from the unit.
525543-60-vol. 124-28
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under them, and direct the work of their crews in a nonroutine man-
ner. We find that the lead mechanic, maintenance, and the machine-
men are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly,
we exclude them from the unit.'
The inspector and head takeoff men, the kiln man, and the warehouse
leadman: The inspector and head takeoff men, who work under the
shift foremen with five other employees, oversee the "takeoff of board
from conveyors." Their chief responsibility is to inspect board and
to adjust machinery according to board size. They assign employees
in their crews to other jobs solely upon direction of higher super-
vision. Their duty to discipline crew members is limited to verbal
scolding for infractions of safety rules. Their use of independent
judgment is restricted to the appraisal of board quality. The adjust-
ment of the machinery in the "takeoff" area is routine in nature.'
The kiln man operates a furnace for drying board. In this connec-
tion, he is required to regulate the temperature of the furnace accord-
ing to production needs. His duties require that he spend most of his
time tending the furnace. He works in the same area with a knife
man. While the kiln man occasionally helps the knife man, the kiln
man does not direct the work of the knife man or train new employees
for the job of knife man.. The kiln man reports violations of safety
rules by the knife man, but the record does not show that the kiln man
has authority to discipline the knife man or effectively to recommend
such action.'
The warehouse leadman works in the Employer's warehouse with
two other truck operators engaged in the loading of the Employer's
products on delivery trucks. A warehouse and loading foreman leaves
a daily set of work instructions which is read by all three employees.
The warehouse leadman has no independent authority to send an em-
ployee home, even if he, is intoxicated, but merely reports the employee
to higher supervision. This leadman spends almost all his working
time operating trucks. His direction of the two other employees is
routine.
In support of its contention that the employees discussed above are
supervisors, the Employer relies on job classification lists which pur-
2 United States Gypsum Company, 120 NLRB 906.
P On one occasion , an inspector head takeoff employee recommended the discharge of
two crew members on the ground that neither had any interest in, or ability to perform,
his work. The Employer retained both employees . Three or four months later, this
inspector head takeoff employee was asked, in view of an impending reduction in force in
his department , whether he still thought that the two employees should be discharged.
Following his affirmative reply, the employees were discharged . As it appears that the
original recommendation was not acted upon but that, in time of a reduction in work
force, his opinion was solicited as to which employees should be discharged from among
his crew, we do not view this single instance as establishing such power effectively to
recommend the discharge of employees as is contemplated by the Act.
4 Occasionally, the shift foreman assigns a miscellaneous employee to clean up debris
in the kiln area . It does not appear that the kiln man directs this employee 's work, or
exercises any authority over him.
C. MALONE TRUCKING, INC. 419
port to delegate to incumbents of the three job categories under dis-
cussion authority to exercise allegedly supervisory functions. In
addition, the record contains testimony, conclusory in form, that mem-
bers of these three job categories responsibly direct the work of em-
ployees and use independent judgment in the performance of such
work. Such evidence does not, in our opinion, warrant a finding that
these three job categories are supervisory within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (11) of the Act, where, as here, the authority which is, in fact,
exercised is minor in degree' and relates to routine matters.' We find
that the inspector head takeoff men, the kiln men, and the warehouse
leadmen are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accord-
ingly, we have included them in the unit.
On the basis 'of the foregoing, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, including inspector and head take-
off employees, kiln men, and warehouse leadmen, but excluding office
clerical employees, machinemen, the maintenance lead mechanic, test-
ers, guards, watchmen, professional and administrative employees,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 United States. Gypsum Company, 118 NLRB 20, at p. 25.
West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, 122 NLRB 738.
With the exception of the five disputed classifications discussed herein, the unit is in
accord with the agreement of the parties.
C. Malone Trucking, Inc. and Local 25, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case No. 1-CA-2411. August 11, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 30, 1959, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Interme-
diate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report.
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 Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
124 NLRB No. 48.