Geo. Knight & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1193 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

GEO. KNIGHT & CO. 1193
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Lafayette,
Indiana, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
GEORGE R. KNIGHT, CHESTERTON S. KNIGHT, CARLTON E. KNIGHT, AND
F. STUART KNIGHT D/B/A GEO. KNIGHT & Co. and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS POWERHOUSE EMPLOYEES,
OPERATORS AND MAINTENANCE MEN, LOCAL 47, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 1-RC-f2053. April 4, 1951
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 Robert S. Fuchs, 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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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 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 a unit composed of the six leadmen in the
die shop of the Employer's plant at Brockton, Massachusetts. In the
alternative the Petitioner has indicated its willingness to include these
employees with other employees it currently represents in a produc-
tion and maintenance unit at the Employer's plant? The Employer
contends that the leadmen are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, but agrees that, if they are not supervisors, they should be in-
I The Petitioner was certified as bargaining agent for the production and maintenance
unit in 1947 after an election held pursuant to a decision and direction of the Board.
74 NLRB 560 . Since that time the Petitioner has not bargained for the leadmen, &g
to whom no issue was raised and no reference made in the earlier decision.
93 NLRB No. 197.
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cluded in the production and maintenance twit in accordance with
the Petitioner's alternative request.
The employees in the die shop at the Employer's plant are engaged
in the production of dies used nn the manufacture and decoration of
shoes. Asa result of its production experience during World War II,
the Employer adopted a group incentive plan, to accordance with
which the die shop employees are divided into production groups
called schools. When first established, each school had six to eight
employees other than the leadhmen. However, during the past ,22 years
the schools have consisted of two or three such employees. Although
the groups are called schools, they were not established for the pur-
poses of instruction or training. In fact, according to the testimony
of a witness for the Employer, the average member of any school has
had 20 years' experience as a. die maker and some of the employees have
had as much as 30 years of such experience.
The die shop foreman delivers sketches of the dies to be produced to
leadman of a school. Although a sketch does not have all the detail
usually incorporated in a blueprint, it does set out the major and im-
portant characteristics of the die. A leadman completes the sketch by
filling in the minor details, as to which greater tolerances and varia-
tions are permissible. At the present time, the ]eadmen each spend
about an hour a day on this type of work, to which they give priority
over other work. The leadmen of the schools assign the completed
sketches of the dies to the employees of the schools for production. In
making such assignments, a leadman may take into consideration the
skill and experience of the employee to whom the assignment is being
made. However, under the group incentive pay system such assign-
ments do not affect the pay of the employee involved.
When the leadman completes the work of "laying out" the sketches
of the dies, he joins the members of the school in the production of the
dies. After the work on the dies has been completed in the die shop,
the leadman sends the dies to the milling room of the Employer's plant,
where they are milled, ground, and subjected to heat treatment. At
times, the leadman specifies with particularity the manner in which
certain dies are to be processed in the milling room. However, the
leadmen do not have any authority over milling room employees, and
if production of a certain die should be given priority over other dies,
the leadmen request the die room foreman to give such instructions to
the milling room employees.
Although the Employer's witnesses testified that the leadmen have
authority to recommend the hire and discharge of employees, it ap-
pears from the record that the leadmen-have not been informed of this
authority. The uncommunicated delegation of such authority does
not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that they possess the
GEO. KNIGHT & CO. 1195
authority effectively to recommend personnel action.2 It also appears
that a finding that the 6 leadmen in question are supervisors would
result in a ratio of 7 supervisors for 14 employees, a very high super-
visory ratio.3 Nor do we believe that the leadmen exercise such a
degree of independent judgment or discretion in the performance of
their duties as would warrant a finding that they responsibly direct
the work of other employees. Such directions as they give appear to
be routine in nature.4 In general, the leadmen have authority to
supervise employees in their respective schools only to the extent that
such supervision is usually exercised by experienced employees over
those less skilled.5
Accordingly, and on the basis of the whole record, we find that the
leadmen are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Moreover,
because the record reveals that leadmen work in close contact with
other members of the schools, perform the same type of work for the
greater part of the day, and are subject to the same general conditions
of employment, we, are of the opinion that leadmen have a sufficient,
community of interest with the other die shop employees and the other
employees in the existing production and maintenance unit to warrant
their inclusion therein if they so desire s
As no question of representation exists at the present time in the
basis production and maintenance unit, we shall direct an election
among the leadmen at the Employer's Brockton, Massachusetts, plant.'
If a majority of the employees voting in the election cast their ballots
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
be a part of the present production and maintenance unit and the
Petitioner may bargain for such employees as a part of that unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Bear Brand Ifosiery Company, 93 NLRB 95, Poole Dry Goods Company, 89 NLRB
1442. The examples cited by the Employer to establish the existence of such authority
amount to no more than sporadic and infrequent exercise of supervisory authority, which
does not in itself confer supervisoi y status American Finishing Company , 86 NLRB 412;
The Austin Company, 77 NLRB 938 Moreover , the significance of such recommendations
as evidence of supervisory authority is negated by the fact that all employees may make
such recommendations with equal effectiveness . The Ironsides Company, 87 NLRB 1564;
Scott Motor Company , 84 NLRB 129.
'The Rollman & Sons Company , 90 NLRB No 1 ; The Ironsides Company, supra,
footnote 2
4 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company , 85 NLRB 1170 ; Bear Brand Hosiery Company , supra,
footnote 2
5Southern Industries Company, 92 NLRB 998 The Ironside4 Company, supra,
footnote 2, Gellman Manufacturing Company , 87 NLRB 292 , The Austin Company, supra,
footnote 2
6 Southern Industries Company, supra, footnote 5 ; The Ironsides Company, supra,
footnote 2
7 Marshall Field it Company, 93 NLRB 182; Great Lakes Pipe Line Company,
92 NLRB 583