Feralloy West Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 1083 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

FERALLOY WEST CO.
Feralloy West Corporation and Pohang Steel Amer-
ica d/b/a Feralloy West Company and Bay
Counties District Council of Carpenters United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 32-RC-2092
13 December 1985
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered determinative chal-
lenges in the election held 19 February 1985 and
the hearing officer's report recommending disposi-
tion of them. The election was conducted pursuant
to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of
ballots shows eight for and six against the Petition-
er, with two challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs, and has adopted the
hearing officer's findings and recommendations'
only to the extent consistent with this Decision and
Direction.
The hearing officer found that Gary Hudson is a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act, and recommended that the challenge to
Hudson's ballot be sustained. The Employer ex-
cepts, contending that Hudson neither exercises in-
dependent judgment nor has the authority to exer-
cise independent judgment in connection with his
duties, and that Hudson's duties are routine and
clerical in nature and therefore do not establish su-
pervisory status . We find merit in the Employer's
exceptions.
The Facts
The Employer, Feralloy West Company, is a
flat-rolled steel processor. Employee Gary Hud-
son's job title is "production supervisor," and he
reports directly to Plant Manager Rick Callow. He
has his own office, desk, and phone. Plant Manager
Callow and Hudson are the only ones involved in
the production process who have their own office.
In his office, Hudson maintains copies of produc-
tion-related coil movement charts, work orders,
employee attendance reports, and supplies. Hudson
receives work orders daily from Plant Manager
Callow. The work orders are written by the order
office at headquarters and then sent to Callow,
who adds any updated packaging information, the
order of the runs, and the designation of the line on
which the work will be run. On receiving the work
1 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the hearing offi-
cer's recommendation to overrule the challenge to the ballot of Daniel
Cesena
1083
orders from Callow, Hudson adds the coil location,
which indicates the location of the steel to be used
on a particular run, and any special handling in-
structions. Hudson determines the location of the
coils by referring to a chart given to him by the
crane operator. Hudson then makes a copy of the
work order for his office files and distributes a
copy to the respective line which is to perform the
work.
Hudson maintains files of employee attendance in
his office and also provides a copy for Callow's
files. He keeps blank verbal and written reprimand
forms in his office, which he fills out, signs, and
issues to employees upon Callow's approval.
Hudson keeps track of employee attendance and
determines when a particular employee has reached
the appropriate number of infractions which could
warrant discipline according to the attendance pro-
gram . He then brings that employee's record to
Callow's attention for a decision on whether to
give the employee a reprimand. Callow does not
conduct an independent investigation of the attend-
ance record; rather, he makes a decision based on
the records submitted by Hudson. Hudson then
issues verbal and written reprimands on Callow's
direction.
Employees who are unable to work or who
arrive late for work contact either the clerical unit,
Callow, or Hudson. When an employee contacts
Hudson, Hudson informs Plant Manager Callow,
who then assigns the work. If Callow is not -avail-
able, Hudson either does the work himself or as-
signs the work, using a seniority list. Under such
circumstances, Hudson later informs Callow as to
what he has done and the decision is reviewed by
Callow.
Hudson is not authorized to assign overtime
work independent of Callow's authority. Hudson
posts an overtime signup sheet in the morning.
Callow, alone, however, authorizes and schedules
overtime. If overtime is scheduled, Hudson confers
with Callow before a determination is made con-
cerning who will perform the work. If Callow is
not present, then Hudson refers to the overtime
signup sheet and the seniority list in determining
who will work overtime on a specific job, and
Hudson later informs Callow of the assignments.
Hudson has no authority to freely move employ-
ees within jobs where it would result in their work-
ing that position for greater than 4 hours, since this
would make them eligible for a higher rate of pay.
When, there is a need for an employee to fill in
temporarily, and it is for less than 4 hours, Hudson
may temporarily transfer an employee; but he usu-
ally reviews this with Callow. On those occasions
when Callow is not present, Hudson may transfer,
277 NLRB No. 114
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and has transferred, employees to work in higher
paying positions for less than 4 hours.2 On one oc-
casion , when Callow took a 3-day vacation, he left
a detailed production schedule with Hudson indi-
cating what particular orders were to run on each
machine . Hudson was responsible for implementing
the production schedules and making sure the place
ran properly. Callow also left directions for
Hudson to call him on vacation if there were any
work-related problems. Hudson testified that while
Callow was on vacation Callow called to check on
how things were going and to see if there was a
need to run overtime.
The record indicates that Hudson has no author-
ity to hire, discharge, lay off, recall, reward, pro-
mote, or evaluate employees, or to grant them time
off. Hudson testified that he has never made a job
transfer or issued reprimands without Callow's ap-
proval or subsequent ratification.
The hearing officer found that Hudson is a su-
pervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) be-
cause he had independently assigned work and
temporarily transferred employees to other posi-
tions using his own judgment and without prior
consultation with Plant Manager Callow, and had
made effective recommendations to issue written
and oral reprimands to employee' The hearing of-
ficer also found that Hudson used independent
judgment in the assignment of employees to par-
ticular machines when overtime is worked. The
Employer -contends that Hudson does not possess
or exercise independent judgment and authority in
any aspect of his work. We agree.
It is well established that the possession of any
one of the indicia specified in Section 2(11)3 of the
Act is sufficient to confer supervisory status on an
employee,4 provided that authority is exercised
with independent judgment on behalf of manage-
ment and not in a routine manner .5 Thus, the exer-
cise of some "supervisory authority" in a merely
rountine, clerical, perfunctory, or sporadic manner
does not confer supervisory status on an employee.
See Chicago Metallic Corp., 273 NLRB 1677 (1985);
a The record indicates that the occasions when Callow is absent from
the plant are very limited . In fact, a 3-day vacation, mentioned below, is
the only evidence of Callow's absence from the plant, although there is
some mention of his occasional absence from the production area
8 Sec 2(11) of the Act provides.
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 effective-
ly 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
4 See George C. Foss Co, 270 NLRB 232 (1984), NLRB v. Edward G.
Budd Mfg Co., 169 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1948), cert denied 335 U S. 908
(1949).
5 See Hydro Conduit Corp, 254 NLRB 433, 437 (1981).
Advanced Mining Group, 260 NLRB 486, ' 507
(1982).
Contrary to the hearing officer, we conclude
that while there is evidence that Hudson exercised
some authority in carrying out his duties, the pre-
ponderance of the evidence fails to show that
Hudson exercised independent judgment in per-
forming such duties.
With respect to the effective recommendation of
discipline, the record shows that Hudson signs and
issues written and oral reprimands, but only on,
Plant Manager Callow's direction. As a part of, ad-
ministering the attendance program, Hudson main-
tains records of the employees ' absences and'tardi-
ness and informs Callow when an employee has..;
reached a certain number of infractions under the
attendance program. In this regard, Hudson's deci-
sion to bring an employee's attendance record to
Callow's attention is dictated by the established at-
tendance program and is not based on any, inde-
pendent evaluation by Hudson of the employee's
record of attendance. While Callow does not con-
duct an independent investigation of the employ-
ee's attendance, he does review the records submit-
ted by Hudson and must approve the issuance of
any reprimand . In these circumstances , we cannot
find that Hudson makes effective recommendations
to discipline employees. Instead, we find that, he
performs the essentially clerical function of keeping
a record of absence and tardiness , and merely in-
forms Callow when an employee has reached a
level of infractions requiring some discipline in ac-
cordance with established guidelines. Thus, Hud-
son's "recommendation" of discipline amounts to
nothing more than the relaying of information to
Callow and, as such, does not establish the exist-
ence of authority to discipline, employees. See
George C. Foss Co., 270 NLRB 232 (1984); Howland _
Hook Marine Terminal Corp., 263 NLRB 453,,
(1982).
The hearing officer found, and the record estab-
lishes, that Hudson distributes work orders to,the
employees each day. However, these work orders
are prepared by the headquarters' order office, and
it is Plant Manager Callow who indicates, on the
work orders, any updated packaging information,
the chronological order of the runs, and the desig-
nation as to the line on which the work will be
run. Although Hudson adds to the work order the
coil location and any special handling instructions,
this does not require the use of independent judg-
ment. Hudson simply indicates the location of the
coil to be used on a particular run, based on infor-
mation provided by the crane operator. As to the
special handling instructions, Hudson, after calling
the order office to verify any customer restrictions
FERALLOY WEST CO.
or specifications , simply indicates on the work
orders whether a particular product is to be proc-
essed or handled in a special way. Such duties are
routine and it appears that Hudson merely serves
as a conduit for management instructions . Thus, we
find that Hudson's assignment of work to employ-
ees is routine and clerical in nature and, according-
ly, does not confer supervisory status . See Chicago
Metallic Corp., supra ; Hydro Conduit Corp., 254
NLRB 433 ( 1981).
The record further shows that Hudson has limit-
ed authority , in Callow 's absence, to assign em-
ployees to fill the position of an absent employee
or to transfer employees to a different , higher
paying position for short periods of time . However,
the normal procedure followed by Hudson when
an employee is absent is to contact Callow, who
then assigns the work. On those occasions when
Callow is not present , Hudson simply follows a se-
niority list in making the assignments . He must still
report to Callow afterwards , and Callow reviews
what Hudson has done . Further , Hudson has no
authority to transfer employees to work for more
than 4 hours in a higher paying position, because
the employee would be entitled to the higher rate.
Hudson 's authority in such matters is extremely
limited in view of Callow's rare absences . Indeed,
the record shows only one instance where Callow
was absent from the plant : a 3-day vacation, during
which Callow called Hudson to check on the
work . Accordingly , we find that Hudson 's assign-
ment of work is exercised sporadically and irregu-
larly in a routine manner involving no use of inde-
pendent judgment and, therefore, that this function
does not confer supervisory status on him. See Chi-
cago Metallic Corp., supra; Hydro Conduit Corp.,
supra.
With regard to the assignment of overtime, the
record indicates that Hudson has no authority to
assign overtime independent of Callow 's authority,
and that it is Callow, and not Hudson , who decides
when and if overtime is to be worked .- However, in
Callow 's rare absences Hudson may assign over-
1085
time that has been authorized . Under such circum-
stances , Hudson uses a preestablished seniority list
and an overtime signup list to make the assign-
ments . Accordingly , we find that Hudson 's assign-
ment of overtime is, like his assignment of work,
exercised sporadically and irregularly in a routine
manner , without use of independent judgment, and
that it is insufficient to confer supervisory status on
him. See Chicago Metallic Corp., supra.
In summary, the factors relied on by the hearing
officer, when reviewed in light of the record, do
not establish the existence of supervisory status.6
We therefore do not adopt the hearing officer's
recommendation with regard to Hudson , and con-
clude that the challenge to his ballot should be
overruled.
Accordingly , as the challenges to the ballots of
Hudson and Cesena are overruled , and as these bal-
lots are sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election, we shall direct the Regional Director
to open and count the ballots, to prepare a revised
tally of ballots , and to issue the appropriate certifi-
cation.
DIRECTION
It is directed that the Regional Director , within
10 days from the date of this decision , open and
count the ballots cast by Gary Hudson and Daniel
Cesena , and prepare and cause to be served on the
parties a revised tally of ballots . Thereafter, the
Regional Director shall issue the appropriate certi-
fication.
IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that this proceeding is
remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose
of taking actions consistent with this Decision and
Direction.
6 In view of this finding , we further find that the additional factors
relied on by the hearing officer, such as Hudson 's title, his possession of
an office , his higher wage, his greater experience than Callow, and the
small size of the unit, do not establish supervisory status.