Acme Staple Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 140 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors,'
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'We exclude as a superslaor Raymond Baer mho, according to the record, is einplo3ed
a substantial part of the tune on outside woik, and has authority, while so emploved,
to hire, discharge, and discipline other employees
ACME STAPLE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,.
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS , LOCAL 134, CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 4-RC-975. May 1, 1951
Decision , Direction , and Order
On January 29, 1951, an election was conducted under the super-
vision of the Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National
Labor Relations Board pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for
certification upon consent election, dated January 17, 1951. The bal-
lot provided for a choice among the Petitioner, United Staple Em-
ployees Association (hereinafter called the Association), and neither
labor organization. Upon the conclusion of the election a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that, of the 76 ballots cast,
36 were for the Petitioner, 35 were for the Association, none were
against both participating labor organizations, and 5 were chal-
lenged.
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 March 5,
1951, issued and served upon the parties a report on challenged bal-
lots. In his report the Regional Director recommended that the five
challenges be overruled and the' ballots be opened and counted.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's recommendations with respect to the ballots of Harry E.
Henry, Catherine Ruff, Howard Edwards, and John Sorbicki. The
Employer and the Association filed briefs in support of the Regional
Director's recommendations.
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 Herzog and Members
Murdock and Styles].
94 NLRB No. 40.
ACME STAPLE COMPANY 141
Viola Sharpley.-As no exceptions to the report on challenges have
been filed with respect to the challenged ballot of Viola Sharpley,
we hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that the
challenge to her ballot be overruled.
Harry E. Henry arid Catherine Ruff.-The Petitioner contends that
both of these individuals are engaged in quality control and therefore
are not entitled to vote. The facts are not in dispute. Henry is the
only inspector in the machine shop. He inspects all staple machines
produced in the shop and when necessary he may make minor adjust-
ments on the staple machines or he may return the machines to the
assemblers for correction. He inspects and makes repairs on used
machines that are returned to the plant. He is hourly rated, receiving
about 6 cents an hour more than the machine assemblers; he works the
same hours under the same working conditions and at a bench in the
same area as the other employees. He has no supervisory duties.
Catherine Ruff circulates among the staple forming machines and
both visually and by the use of gauges inspects the staples being
produced and the boxes of staples which have been packed. If she
finds defective staples she reports the condition to the machine oper-
ator or the maintenance man. Anything more serious is reported
directly to the assistant superintendent. During noon hour and rest
periods she operates a staple forming machine. She is hourly rated
and receives approxiiriately 30 cents per hour more than the operators.
She has no supervisory authority.
The Petitioner claims that the decisions of these individuals, which
decisions they have the power to enforce, affect the incentive earnings
of the operators and therefore they should not be entitled to vote.
However, we find, as did the Regional Director, that Henry and Ruff
are inspectors of the type the Board usually includes in production
and maintenance units 1 and we shall therefore overrule the challenges
to their ballots.
Howard Edwards and John Sorbicki.-Upon the basis of his in-
vestigation the Regional Director found that Edwards and Sorbicki
were not supervisors and recommended that the challenges to their
ballots be overruled. In its exceptions, the Petitioner raises material
issues of fact as to their supervisory status.
Inasmuch as the three ballots, challenges to which are overruled,
may determine the results of the election, we shall direct that they
be opened and counted. We shall also direct that, in the event that
the above three ballots, when opened and counted, do not determine
the results of the election, a hearing be held to determine whether
or not Edwards and Sorbicki are supervisors.
'Farrell -Cheek Steel Company, S8 NLRB 303 , Lindeman Power Equipment Company,
71 NLRB 647
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Direction and Order
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain
representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Acme
Staple Company, Camden, New Jersey, at its Camden, New Jersey,
plant, the Regional Director for the Fourth Region shall, pursuant
to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, within
ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the
ballots of Viola Sharpley, Harry E. Henry, and Catherine Ruff, and
thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a supple-
mental tally of ballots, including therein the count of the challenged
ballots.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in the event that the ballots of Viola
Sharpley, Harry E. Henry, and Catherine Ruff, when opened and
counted, do not determine the results of the election, a hearing be held
to determine whether or not Howard Edwards and John Sorbicki,
whose ballots were challenged in the aforesaid election, were super-
visors as of the eligibility date of the election; and
IT .IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event a hearing is held, the hear-
ing officer designated for the purpose 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 recom-
mendations to the Board as to the disposition of said challenges.
Within ten (10) days of receipt of such report, any party may file
with the Board in Washington, D. C., an original and six copies of
exceptions thereto. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions,
the party filing shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties, and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. If no excep-
tions are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendation of
the hearing officer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event a hearing is held, the above-
entitled matter be, and it hereby is, referred to the said Regional
Director for the purposes of such hearing, and that the aforesaid
Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue early
notice thereof.
THE M . H. DAVIDSON COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESS-
MEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL . Cases Nos.
1-CA-483 and 1-RC-969. May 0, 1951
Decision and Order
On July 21, 1950, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
94 NLRB No. 34.