Valdese Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1256 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
modify, the question frequently arises whether a notice given shortly
before the Mill B date serves to prevent the automatic renewal of the
contract, thereby rendering a subsequently filed petition timely.2
In the instant case, however, the contract provides only for notice
of termination. Under these circumstances the Intervenor's notice to
the Employer, given shortly before the Mill B date, of its desire to
change the contract must be construed as an exercise of its right to
prevent the automatic renewal of the contract.' Accordingly, we find
the contract not to be a bar to this proceeding.
4. We find, as stipulated by the parties at the hearing, that the
following employees of the Employer at its metal stampings manu-
facturing plant in Cleveland, Ohio, 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 and
inspectors, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'See, for example , Michigan Gear & Engineering Company, 114 NLRB 208; Grif ith
Rubber Mills , 114 NLRB 712; American Lawn Mower Co., 108 NLRB 1589.
8 The Standard Register Co., 100 NLRB 981.
Valdese Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Textile Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 11-RC-815.
May 1,1956
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 Louis Perloff, hearing of-
ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act. .
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent the employees
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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture of textiles at
Valdese, North Carolina. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production
and maintenance employees. The Employer and the Petitioner agreed
to exclude several named individuals as supervisors,' and to include a
1 Henry Childress, John Deal, Revels Aiken, T. C. Taylor, Ellis Annas, Felix Plercy,
:Dart Glasebrook, Belo Hull, Briscoe Cannon, Ed Pascal, and George Rector.
115 NLRB No. 196.
VALDESE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1257
number of categories 2 after testimony was given at the hearing as to,
their duties. However, there was disagreement as to the following in-
dividuals whom the Employer would include and the Petitioner ex-
clude from the unit.
Lloyd Johnson and Evert Williams direct the second and third shifts,
in the dyehouse, and each shift is composed of approximately 13 men.
They are hourly paid and receive time and a half for overtime work.
Although they do not operate machines, they push trucks of yarn to the
machines and from the machines to the point where the dye is loaded.
Both these men report to the head dyer who is at the plant from 6 a. in.
until after 2 or 3 p. in. The second shift is in operation before he leaves
the plant. Instructions for both shifts are written out and all shift
employees as well as these two who are in charge of the shifts, know
what is to be done. No one has authority to deviate from the written
instructions without the head dyer's permission. The men in charge
of the second and third shifts are instructed to call the head dyer if
anything unusual occurs. The plant superintendent regularly returns.
each evening after 7 p. in. to see that everything is running smoothly.
If a shift employee becomes ill or for any other reason has to leave, the-
man in charge of the shift takes over the machine or calls the head
dyer to request that someone be called in. Neither Williams nor John-
son has any authority to hire or discharge; their sole duty is to tell
the employees what to do according to the blueprint of the head
dyer's orders. The head dyer testified that neither had authority to
discipline a man, but would report it to him at the end of the shift.
Both these individuals have attended supervisory meetings where
trouble is discussed, the house cleaning in the mill, the quantity an&
the quality of yarn received, and things that can be done to better
production, but the Employer contends that attendance at these meet-
ings does not necessarily mean the individuals are supervisors. On
these facts, and on the entire record, we find that Johnson and Wil-
^liams direct the shift employees in a routine manner and that they have
no true attributes of supervisory authority. We conclude that Lloyd
Johnson and Evert Williams are not supervisors as defined in the Act
and shall include them in the unit.
Ervin Deal is a dyer under the immediate supervision of the head
dyer. He is hourly paid, and his hours overlap the first and second
shifts. His primary duty is to write up the dye formulae. He looks
at the yarn ticket which has been punched at the dyehouse and gets
the color number, lot number, and yarn weight, then writes down the
formula and figures the weight of each dye that is supposed to go into
the dye kettle for that lot of yarn. Then, he either weighs the dye
2Yarn weigher, emulsion man, tube supply man, laboratory gul, utility man, waste
house man, sanitation man, five machine maintenance men, electrician, plant maintenance
men, moving and repair men, leadmen Walter Childress and Edd Cline, spare hands, cot-
ton receiving clerk, and warehouse receiving clerks
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or turns it over to others to weigh. He puts the formula plus the
procedure to follow on the back of the dye kettle with the dye that
has been weighed. He has attended some of the supervisory meetings
although he has no supervisory authority. We include him in the
unit.
Ervin Smith works in the spinning room as a card grinder. He
sharpens the points or metal bristles that cover the 89 or more carding
machines. He works the first shift, has the same hours as other em-
ployees, and, although he attends the supervisory meetings, there is
no evidence that he directs the work of any employees. Nor does he
have the authority to hire or discharge employees. We include him in
the unit.
There are four firemen-watchmen who spend the vast majority of
their time firing the boilers, and looking after the pumps. Steam for
dyeing is essential as the dyeing operation is performed under a cer-
tain temperature and humidity so as to condition the yarn, making a
tremendous boiler necessary. Insurance regulations do not require
a watchman while the plant is in operation. The plant operates 3
shifts, 6 days a week. All gates are closed on Sunday and the fireman
is the only employee on the premises. In addition to maintaining the
boiler, he inspects for fire and would report trespassers. The firemen
are not deputized, armed, or uniformed. The plant is enclosed with a
fence and the buildings cover approximately 40,000 square feet. The
superintendent testified that these firemen, as well as all other em-
ployees, would report a fire or the presence of an unidentified stranger.
As these employees spend a portion of their time performing guard
duties, we find that these firemen-watchmen are guards as defined in
the Act and shall exclude them from the unit.
The quality control man is salaried and works out of the plant super-
intendent's office. His duty is to check the quality of the yarn and
the production, and to advise the Employer as to the cause of any.
defects. His hours overlap the first and second shifts. He has had
some technical training and his job requires considerable practical
experience. He makes no recommendations concerning specific em-
ployees except when defects in quality are attributed to an employee;
then it is the duty of the employee's supervisor to correct the work
of the employee. He has no authority to discipline or discharge an
employee, nor do any of his decisions affect the wages or status of an
employee. We are of the opinion that the quality control man is
not a supervisor but that because of the technical nature of his work
his interests differ from those of the production and maintenance em-
ployees. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the unit.
A trashman or drayman does hauling for the Employer in his own
truck. Regularly, he hauls trash from the premises, usually in the
middle of the week and on Saturday. He does other hauling for the
VALDESE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1259
Employer when the need arises. He keeps his own time as do many
other employees at the plant. He is covered by the Employer's insur-
ance plan for employees and social-security deductions are made by
the Employer from his wages. He is hourly paid and regularly works
8 to 10 hours per week. We find that he is a regular part-time employee
and include him in the unit.
The laboratory man, Charles McBrayer, works in the laboratory
with another employee, under the immediate supervision of the plant
superintendent. The other employee runs wash tests, performs clerical
duties, and is hourly paid. The parties agree to include her in the
unit. McBrayer was formerly a school teacher and has been with the
Employer less than a year. He is salaried. He works the same hours
as the other employees and has no supervisory authority. When
McBrayer was employed, he did not have the necessary technical train-
ing, but is I earning the work under the direct supervision of the plant
superintendent. The laboratory is located in a small room off the
dye floor. On these facts we conclude that McBrayer is not a technical
employee, and has interests in common with the other employee in
the laboratory and with production and maintenance employees. We
shall include him in the unit.
The dye plant clerks, two of whom work under the supervision
of the head dyer, write tags which are put on the winders to reflect
the orders for yarn. Frequently, it is necessary for them to go out
into the plant and check on orders. Their offices are located in the
plant which is several blocks from the general offices. They receive
the same company benefits as other plant employees, and are hourly
paid. Another clerk in this office works for both the head dyer and
the superintendent. She keeps records of every batch of yarn dyed,
checks on orders out in the plant, and does some secretarial work.
She has no authority to direct other employees, and is hourly paid.
We find that these three clerks are plant clerical employees and in-
clude them in the unit.
The shipping department clerk works in the shipping room in the
office of the warehouse supervisor, preparing the bills of lading and
doing some secretarial work. She works on the first shift and is
hourly paid. We find that she is a plant clerical employee and in-
clude her in the unit.
Horace Bean is the leadinan of two other plant maintenance men
and performs manual labor the same as they do. The executive vice
president of the Company testified that he thought the maintenance
work was laid out by someone else; that the leadman had no authority
to recommend discharge and such a recommendation would be given
no weight; that he was not consulted with regard to hiring; and that
his wages were about the same as those of the other two men. No
evidence was presented that the leadman has any authority to re-
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sponsibly direct or make effective recommendations affecting the
status of other employees. We find he is not a supervisor and in-
clude him in the unit.
Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Valdese Man-
ufacturing Company, Inc., at its plant located at Valdese, North
Carolina, 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 the yarn
weigher, the emulsion man, the tube supply man, the utility man, the
waste house man, the sanitation man, the machine maintenance man,
the electrician, the plant maintenance men, the moving and repair
men, the spare hands, the cotton receiving clerk, the warehouse re-
ceiving plerks, the laboratory girl, the laboratory man,' the trash-
man or drayman, the dye plant clerks, the shipping department clerk,
the maintenance leadlnan,' the second and third shift leaders,' the
dyer,' and the card grinder,' but excluding office clerical employees,
the quality control man, the firemen-watchmen, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Charles 1llcBrayei
Horace Bean
Lloyd Johnson and Evert Williams.
Eivin Deal
4 Ervin Smith.
Rumford Chemical Works , Division of Hulman and Company 1
and Rumford Chemical Employees Association Independent
Union, Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-4342. May 2, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert N. Watterson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.3
'The name of the Employer appeals as amended at the hearing
2 United Baking Powder and Allied Products Unit No 456. Local No 184, Bakery and
Confectionery Workers International Union of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
E As the record indicates that the Petitioner, organized in December 1955, exists for
the purpose of bargaining with the Employer with respect to wages, hours , and other
conditions of, employment , we find , contrary to the contention of the Intervenor, that
the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
115 NLRB No. 198.