Ideal Roller & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 931 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 931
maintenance employees for seniority purposes. However, as
the Board has held in previous cases, the fact that there are
other employees in the plant performing work comparable to
that of the less skilled employees in a departmental unit, does
not preclude the finding that such a unit may be appropriate. 5
Nor is the unit sought precluded by the fact that a few of the
employees in question are administratively grouped with other
plant employees outside the unit for seniority purposes, par-
ticularly in view of the evidence that under the Intervenor's
contract a substantial quantum of discretion is reserved by the
Employer in selecting employees for layoff and recall on the
basis of ability and classification.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees may
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All
forge shop, steel rack, hot inspection, and forge maintenance
employees, and the forge shop tool crib attendant in the
Employer's Hartford, Connecticut, plant, but excluding the
die vault attendant, all other employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
We shall direct an election to determine the desires of these
employees. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the
election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the
Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of
election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication. ]
5 E. g., The Plomb Tool Company, supra.
IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED
SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 329, AFL, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 13-RC-2538. May 12, 1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion, an election was conducted among the employees in the
stipulated unit on April 15, 1952. The tally of ballots showed
that of approximately 164 eligible voters, 130 cast valid ballots
which were counted, and 24 cast challenged ballots. Of the 130
valid votes counted, 74 were for the Petitioner, and 56 against.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect
the results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation and, on July 21, 1952, issued his report on
challenges wherein he recommended that the Board order a
104 NLRB No. 116.
9 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing. No exceptions being filed to this recommendation, the
Board, on August 11, 1952, issued its order directing hearing
on challenged ballots, requiring that the hearing officer "shall
prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report con-
taining resolutions of the credibility of witnesses , findings of
fact and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition
of said challenges." The hearing was held before John P. von
Rohr, hearing officer, who on February 20, 1953, issued the
hearing officer's report on challenged ballots with findings
and recommendations, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Thereafter, the Employer filed its exceptions to the report.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing
officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer, as the parties
stipulated, 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 at the Em-
ployer's Chicago, Illinois, plant, excluding truckdrivers,
stationary engineers, office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. No exceptions were taken to, and the Board adopts, the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing
officer relating (1) to the challenge by the Petitioner of the
ballot of Novak, a janitress, who we agree should, like the two
janitors, be included in the unit, and (2) to the challenge by
the Employer of the ballot of Piccony, who we agree should be
excluded as a stationary engineer.
Respecting the 22 group leaders, whose ballots the Petitioner
challenged on the basis of their alleged supervisory capacity,
the hearing officer concluded that 11 were supervisors,' and
the remaining 11' (of whom 34 were not acting as group leaders
' 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 Houston, Styles, and Peter-
son]
2Benkowski, Frith, Goss, Griggs, Hulse, Karasinski, Lanting, Potokar, Shaffer, Wos, and
Zon.
'Baran, Bialas, Dunka, Gutjahr, Hawrysko, Kaste, Kornoelje, Lesny, Russ, Schuster, and
Skibicki.
4 Dunka, Gutjahr, and Hawrysko.
IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 933
at the time of the election)' were not supervisors. The Em-
ployer excepts to some of the hearing officer's credibility
findings in resolving conflicts in testimony, to his findings of
supervisory authority on the part of the 11 group leaders, and
further, to the hearing officer's assertedly arbitrary standards
in concluding that some of the group leaders were and others
were not supervisors.
Although we do not agree with the hearing officer's conclu-
sions in the entirety, we adopt his fact and credibility findings.
We find, as did the hearing officer, that the group leaders
possess authority effectively to recommend temporary and
permanent transfers , to grant such favors as time off to em-
ployees, and to take charge of their respective departments,
seeing that the production schedules are met. We also agree
that they are commonly referred to as foremen; that they6
attend " foremen's meetings " where safety, working con-
ditions, production problems, and grievances are discussed;
and that most of them' make out employees merit ratings
which are given effective weight.' In addition, we agree that
they are responsible for the training of new employees.
The Employer, in contending that none of the group leaders
is a supervisor, would have us find that Superintendent Kocmoud
is the only supervisor over approximately 90 employees in 13
different departments, and that he and Foreman Phillips are
the only supervisors over 60 employees in 3 other depart-
ments . To the contrary, the record reveals that the group
leaders were placed in charge of the various departments to
avoid such a disproportionate number of employees and
departments to supervisors. Moreover, such a proposed find-
ing would mean that the second and third shifts, from 5:30 p. m.
to 8 a. m ., would be operated without any supervisors present.
We therefore agree with the hearing officer's conclusion
that some of the group leaders have supervisory status. How-
ever, we do not limit the number in this status to the 11 who
spend 25 percent or more of their time assigning and directing
other employees in their respective departments. Despite the
fact that 8 other group leaders spend an estimated 95 percent
of their time in performing physical work similar to that of
other employees, they nevertheless are responsible for the
sequence in the flow of work in their departments, for meeting
the daily or weekly production quota, and for the entire manu-
facturing process under their jurisdiction. Furthermore, they
possess the other indicia of supervisory status, stated above.
We accordingly find that all the group leaders, except Dunka,
Gutjahr, and Hawrysko, were at that time supervisors within
5 Gutjahr was the only employee in his department and therefore had no supervisory au-
thority. Both Dunka and Hawrysko, who had been group leaders on the night shift in their
respective departments, were working on the day shift, under other group leaders, after
abandonment of their night shifts.
6 Except Lesny, a female group leader.
Except Benkowski, Dunka, Goss, Hawrysko, Lesny, Goss, and Potokar.
6 Also. various group leaders have effectively recommended pay raises at times other than
when the semiannual merit ratings are made.
283230 0 - 54 - 60
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the statutory definition.' We therefore sustain the challenges
to their ballots.
As we sustain the challenges to 20 of the ballots (i.e., the
ballots of Piccony and 19 group leaders), the other 4 ballots,
even if counted, could not affect the results of the election. We
shall not, therefore, order that these 4 ballots be opened and
counted.
The Petitioner having received a majority of the valid votes
in the election, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Service Employees
Union, Local 329, AFL, has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees of Ideal Roller & Manufacturing
Company, Chicago, Illinois , in the appropriate unit, described
above, as their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining and that , pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the
said organization is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
9 At the time of the hearing , however, Dunka had replaced Shaffer as a group leader.
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT ON CHALLENGED BALLOTS
WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed on March 26,
1952, an election was conducted on April 15, 1952, among the following employees of the
Company:
All production and maintenance employees , excluding truck drivers , stationary engi-
neers, office and clerical employees , guards , professional and supervisory employees,
as defined in the Act , as amended
The results of the election were as follows:
Approximate number of eligible voters . ................ ........... 164
Void ballots............... ...... ................ ... .... 3
Votes cast for United Service Employees Union, Local 329, AFL ............ 74
Votes cast against participating labor organization...................... 56
Valid votes counted................. ......................... 130
Challenged ballots ............... ...... .. . ................ 24
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots . ......................... 154
Inasmuch as the total of challenged ballots was sufficient to affect the results of the election
the Regional Director proceeded to investigate the said challenges, and upon the basis thereof
on July 21, 1952, issued his report on challenges wherein he found that a need for clarifica-
tion of ambiguities and issues of credibility existed vrith respect to the challenges and for
that reason recommended that the Board order a hearing to be held as a means by which
those issues might be resolved . No exceptions were filed to the recommendation by either
party , and on August 11 , 1952, the Board issued its order directing hearing on challenged
ballots. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on September 26, 1952,
and October 20, 21, 23, 24 , and 27. 1952 , before John P. von Rohr, the undersigned hearing
officer , duly designated to conduct such hearing . Each party was represented by counsel who
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross - examine
IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 935
witnesses , and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues was afforded all parties. The
parties waived oral argument . Thereafter , pursuant to leave granted to all parties , both the
Union and the Company, on November 14 and November 17, 1952, respectively, filed briefs
which have been considered.
The order directing hearing on challenged ballots required that the hearing officer "shall
prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the
credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the dis-
position of the said challenges ." In substance , the issues raised by the challenges are:
1 Were the 22 group leaders challenged as supervisors actually supervisors within the
meaning of the Act on April 15, 1952?
2. Should Hattie Novak, janitress, be excluded from the unit because she allegedly does
not work in the plant9
3. Should J. Piccony be excluded from the unit because he allegedly is a stationary
engineer'
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the under-
signed makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE SUPERVISORY STATUS OF THE GROUP LEADERS
A. Admitted supervisory personnel
The Company' s plant is housed in 1 building , employs approximately 165 production and
maintenance employees , and is engaged in the manufacture of printers ' rollers , mechanical
molded rubber goods , and miscellaneous related items involved in this proceeding are 12
highly integrated production departments , a receiving department, a shipping department,
an inspection department , and a maintenance department . Each department has a group
leader whose supervisory or nonsupervisory status is here in dispute
Joseph Kocmoud is plant superintendent in charge of production and Henry Eichholz is
plant engineer in charge of engineering and maintenance ; both answer to President H. Norris
Love Edward Guzan is foreman of the machine shop under Eichholz Leslie Phillips is
foreman of the molded goods department , which actually consists of four subdepartments
as more fully described hereinafter , and answer to Plant Superintendent Kocmoud. The
five group leaders in this department answer to Phillips. All other group leaders with the
exception of the group leader in the maintenance department , who is responsible to Eichholz,
answer directly to Kocmoud , there being no intermediate foremen in the other departments.
There remains Irwin Neidl , chief chemist in charge of laboratory research , whose depart-
ment is not involved in this proceeding
All of the foregoing supervisory personnel are paid on a salary basis, as contrasted to
the group leaders, who are hourly paid.
President Love spends most of his time at his office in the plant, but his primary function
is to direct the Company ' s financial and production -affairs. Although he has frequent occa-
sion to discuss personnel and production problems with Kocmoud and Eichholz , the evidence
indicates that very little of his time is spent in direct contact with the production and main-
tenance employees.
B. Origin and background of the group leaders;
instructions to group leaders
Love testified that in 1936 the Company had expanded to the extent where it became
necessary to select a man in each department to handle the production work schedules
and to "get the rollers out." Accordingly, the Company selected generally the oldest and
most experienced employee in each department for this purpose . There is no evidence that
at this time any particular name or classification was assigned to these men. However,
not long after the inception of this program, the Company instituted and regularly held
foremen ' s meetings which these employees were required to attend , in consequence of
which they became commonly known as foremen and were thereafter called foremen by the
Company's employees. It is only within the last several years that the Company designated
them as "group leaders ." Nevertheless , the record is clear that the employees still com-
monly refer to them as foremen.
When group leader replacements are necessary , the selections are made by Love and
Kocmoud The new group leader is generally selected from the department where the opening
occurs and, again, the oldest and most experienced employee is generally chosen.
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The functions and duties of the group leaders are most fully discussed in succeeding
paragraphs . It appears , however , that the duties , functions , responsibilities , and authority
of group leaders gradually developed over a period of years . Love testified that when new
group leaders are appointed , Kocmoud advises them of their change in status and tells them
that they are "in charge" and they are to "get [the work] out ." Group Leader Samuel Frith
of the grinding department testified that when he was appointed group leader , he wds told
"to take charge of the department and see that the work went through" and "to teach others
[the] work"; R. Griggs, group leader of the rubber roller department , testified that Kocmoud
asked him , when appointed group leader, if he would like " the foreman 's job," telling him
to take care of the department " in general" and "see that the work goes out right"; E.
Hulse, group leader of the maintenance department , testified that he was merely told by
Kocmoud "you have charge of the department ." Similarly , Group Leaders J. Potokar, R
Karasinski , E. Shaffer, and J. Zon testified to the effect that when they were advised of
their appointment as group leaders , they were told to take charge of their respective depart-
ments. Thus, the duties , authority , and functions of the group leaders developed and grew
over a period of years. Inasmuch as newly appointed group leaders were familiar with the
functions of their predecessors , no further instructions were necessary other than to be
told to take charge of the department.
C. Foremen's meetings
Foremen 's meetings were instituted by the Company in about 1943 or 1944, and they were
regularly held on a monthly basis until the fall of 1951. Love testified that since that time
foremen's meetings have been " intermittent" and that he decides when they are to be held.
All group leaders attend these meetings as do the plant superintendent and other foremen,
with the exception of Eichholz. i According to Love, they are not required to attend, but
"nobody has categorically refused to participate in them " The meetings are held at 4:30
p. m. in the Company ' s laboratory . This is after working hours for the majority of the group
leaders, but they are paid at their regular rate for attending. Announcements of the meetings
are made to the group leaders orally or by written notice . For example , the following notice,
which listed in its margin the names of all group leaders , was issued to them on the date
indicated:
There will be a Foremen ' s Meeting Tuesday, February 19, 1952 at 4.30 p . m., will want
everyone to be sure to attend.
Joe Kocmoud
According to the testimony of Love and Kocmoud, the principal purpose of the foremen's
meetings is to afford an opportunity for a discussion of safety matters . Other group leaders
who testified also stated that the topic of safety was the principal matter discussed. In
addition , however, Love testified that on occasion such matters as production problems,
employees insurance benefits , "complaints " of employees , and working conditions (such
as cleanliness in the plant), are discussed . Love also testified that prior to the election
involved herein, the group leaders were told at one of the foremen 's meetings that a Board
election was to be held and they were not to engage in any practices which might result in
an unfair labor practice.
According to Love , wage matters are not discussed at foremen's meetings . Although
several group leaders testified concerning foremen 's meetings wherein wage matters were
discussed , the incidents of discussion of this topic occurred several years ago. In view of
the lapse of time , further elaboration of these incidents is not deemed material.
It is the conclusion of the hearing officer that the principal function of the foremen's
meetings is to promote safety, but that opportunity is also afforded for a discussion of
such matters as working conditions , production problems, and grievances.
D. Authority of group leaders
1. Hiring and discharge
It is the Company 's contention that group leaders have no authority to hire , fire, or to
recommend such action ; Love and Kocmoud so testified. The evidence is unoontroverted
t Mary Lesny is the only female group leader (molded goods inspection department) and is
the only group leader who does not attend foremen meetings.
IDEAL ROLLER& MANUFACTURING COMPANY 937
that Kocmoud and Phillips do all the hiring of production employees and that only Kocmoud
and Eichholz do the hiring of maintenance employees. It is undisputed that the group leaders
do not participate in the hiring of employees, and I so find.
With respect to discharges, Love and Kocmoud testified that group leaders lack authority
to discharge or effectively recommend such action. The fact is that very few employees are
ever discharged by the Company. Love indicated that an estimate of one discharge a year
would be "rather high." The only incident of discharge adduced at the hearing involved
Group Leader Samuel Frith and occurred about 2years ago Frith testified that when two em-
ployees, on that occasion, told him that another employee had been drinking and was in no
conditic.i to run her machine, he, having previously suspected this employee of drinking,
reported the matter to Kocmoud and told him "we should probably let her go because she
[is] going to get hurt " According to Frith, this employee was then discharged. Kocmoud
later referred to a similar incident, although he did not identify it as the same one related
by Frith, wherein "someone" reported an employee drinking on the night shift, and that she
was subsequently discharged after he had investigated the matter. Love testified that anyone
could report incidents of this nature, but the Company would act upon it only after an investi-
gation and the decision then would be made by Kocmoud.
In view of the uncontradicted testimony of Love and Kocmoud that group leaders have no
authority to discharge or effectively to recommend such action, and in the absence of specific
incidents illustrating the exercise of any such authority by group leaders other than the
aggravated incident cited above, it is found that the group leaders possess no authority in
matters pertaining to discharge.
2. Transfers
The Company asserts that group leaders have no authority to make transfers, and that if
any are made, the Company would act upon them only after Kocmoud made his own mvesti-
gation and decision in respect thereto. Although Kocmoud testified that he had made certain
transfers in the molded goods department and in the rubber mix department without consult-
ing the group leaders affected, the following specific incidents adduced at the hearing have
a bearing on the matter.
J. Potokar, a group leader , testified that during the last year he had occasion to break
in a new man who had been assigned to his department; that several months thereafter he
concluded this employee was physically unable to perform the work; that he then reported
this fact to Kocmoud, asking that the man be transferred; and that Kocmoud thereupon made
the transfer
S. Frith testified that the work in his department fluctuates from time to time and there
are occasions when he will either need another man or is able to spare one; that when this
occurs, he reports the fact to Kocmoud who accordingly grants the transfers; that on these
occasions of temporary transfers he (Frith) selects the man to be transferred. Frith further
testified that on one occasion when a man was discharged from his department, he requested
Kocmoud that one Bob Dewig (or Dewick), an employee in another department, be transferred
to his department and that the transfer subsequently was made.2
Group Leader R Griggs testified that Group Leader Frith, on one occasion, told him that
he had an extra man and asked whether he (Griggs) could use him, that he told Frith that he
could use this man, and the following day the man was assigned to his department.
Each of the above incidents as related by the group leaders involved are undenied and are
credited It is concluded that group leaders have no authority to make transfers. However.
despite Kocmoud's assertion that he does not rely upon the recommendations of group
leaders in respect to transfers, I find, in view of the foregoing incidents, that group leaders
have authority to effectively recommend both temporary and permanent transfers, and that
such authority has been exercised
3. Discipline; authority to grant favors
Discipline
The Company maintains that group leaders have no authority to discipline employees. Love
testified that group leaders are primarily concerned with enforcing safety regulations; that
=Concerning this incident, Kocmoud did not deny that Frith recommended the transfer,
but stated that he made the transfer and did not "follow or rely on the recommendation of
any other person."
9 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they can report incidents of misconduct to Kocmoud ; but that the latter is then responsible
for further investigation and the administering of whatever discipline he decides to take.
No evidence concerning disciplinary action was adduced at the hearing other than that
D. Pence, an employee, testified that Group Leader Zon had, on occasion, "bawled [him]
out,", F. Columbus, another employee, testified about several occasions when Group Leader
Goss came up to a group of girls who were talking and told them , in effect , " let's get cutting
on the work "
It is concluded that the group leaders possess no authority to discipline employees, that
they act in a monitorial capacity only, and that their authority is limited to calling employees'
attention to rules infractions and notifying the plant superintendent of such infractions.
Authority to Grant Favors
The Company contends that group leaders have no general authority to grant favors, such
as time off, or to excuse absences, but that when they receive a request of this nature from an
employee , the group leader must obtain permission to grant such request from Kocmoud or
Phillips. s The evidence conflicts, however, with this contention. While some group leaders
testified that they normally ask the plant superintendent for permission to grant time off to em-
ployees in their respective departments, 4 others testified that they grant such permission to
employees in their departments without consulting the plant superintendent or anyone else. 6 In
addition, employees D. Pence, F. Zordani, and F. Columbus testified that Group Leaders Zon,
Griggs, and Frith, respectively, gave them time off when they asked for it without first obtain-
ing permission from the plant superintendent or any other foreman.
When employees know in advance that they will be absent from work, the testimony of
Kocmoud and various group leaders and employees indicates that some employees will call
the plant , ask for their group leader and advise him accordingly ; others will call directly
in to Kocmoud or Phillips . Kocmoud or Phillips not being present on the late shifts, the
employees on those shifts will notify the group leaders in the absence of the former.
While the Company offered no testimony, and apparently does not contend, that group
leaders were ever advised or instructed that they had no authority to grant favors of the
nature under consideration , neither is there evidence to indicate that group leaders were
ever advised that, in fact, they had such authority.
The hearing officer is convinced that group leaders possess and exercise authority to
grant such favors as time off to employees in their departments. In support of this finding,
the hearing officer particularly refers to the undenied and unrefuted testimony, discussed
above , which shows that a number of group leaders have exercised and continue to exercise
such authority. Quite probably group leaders assumed such authority was authorized when
they were told to "take charge" of their respective departments. Certainly, there is no
evidence to show that the exercise of this authority was ever restrained by the Company.
Presumably , all group leaders , except under unusual circumstances ,6 could also exercise
this authority if they so chose.
4. Overtime
The evidence reveals that overtime is generally established by the front office. However,
if a particular job is nearly completed at the end of a shift, group leaders may request the
employees to finish the job. This is particularly true in the shipping and maintenance de-
partments , where the unloading of a truck may not be completed at quitting time or where
a repair job is not finished at the end of the day. Consequently , it is found that group leaders
do not have authority to grant overtime or to select the employees who are to work overtime
but that their authority is limited to those sporadic occasions where they may ask employees
to remain to complete a job in the normal routine of work.
SKocmoud testified in many instances employees will come directly to him or Phillips if
they have a request of this nature.
4Gross, Griggs , and Karasinski so testified.
5 Frith, Potokar, and Zon so testified. Shaffer testified that he would permit employees if
they become ill, to leave without consulting Kocmoud.
6On one occasion, several employees asked their group leader for permission to attend a
ball game . The group leader spoke to Kocmoud, who denied the requests . It would appear that
requests of this nature would involve company policy and that even acknowledged foremen
would be hesitant to grant such requests until that policy had been established by their
superiors.
IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
5. Training of new employees
939
It is undisputed that group leaders are responsible for the training of new employees.
Kocmoud or Phillips will introduce a new employee to the group leader in whose department
the employee is to work and the group leader will then take over his training . Indeed, there
is evidence that group leaders may select another - employee in the department to do the
actual instructing of the new employee . J. Potokar testified , without contradiction , that in the
majority of cases when Foreman Leslie Phillips brings in a new man to him , he (Potokar)
will not do the training himself but will take the new employee to an old employee in the
department and tell the latter to " take this man and show him the fundamentals of the job
until he gets used to it."
6. Merit ratings
This Company rates its employees every 6 months to determine whether or not they
should be given merit increases . The merit ratings are made by all of the group leaders for
the employees in their respective departments 7 and they are made by means of merit rating
sheets which are filled out by each group leader . All group leaders are rated by Kocmoud.
Prior to June or July of 1951 , the Company used a merit-rating system furnished by the
National Metal Trades Association , a consultant agency which furnishes the Company with
this and other services. These merit - rating sheets listed 24 performance factors which were
to be checked yes or no. The opposite side of the sheets called for "general comments,"
and left space to answer such specific questions as "In your opinion , is this employee per-
forming the task best suited to his ability ?" " If not, what sort of work should he be doing";
"what especially desirable good traits does he have ," and the like.
Subsequent to June or July of 1951, the Company discontinued the use of the merit - rating
sheets furnished by the National Metal Trades Association and substituted merit - rating
sheets devised by itself These sheets, still in use, list 12 performance factors. Four
choices of varying degree appear after each factor , one of which is to be checked. For
example , the factor " quality of work ," leaves the following choices which are determined:
best , good , average, or poor . These sheets do not provide for further comments, as did the
sheets previously in use.
Love testified that all group leaders who make merit ratings had received instructions as
to the proper use of the merit - rating sheets.
After the merit ratings have been made by the group leaders, Love and Kocmoud go over
them and consult with each other before final determination is made . Love asserted that when,
in their opinion , any particular group leader ' s judgment is in error , they will make such
changes as they see fit. He further testified that the merit ratings of the group leaders are
effective only insofar that " it gives us a start ." but that " it couldn ' t be a final determina-
tion ." In this connection , Love further stated that group leader evaluation of employees is
necessary because "we don ' t know [the employees '] conscientiousness on the job . his
ability to grasp new ideas . . . all of the various things which are on the rating sheet "
Significantly , when merit - rating increases are given out, the announcement of the raises
are made by the group leaders to the employees who receive them.
The Company has made no specific contention concerning the effectiveness of the group
leaders' merit ratings other than to state in its brief that " Mr. Love and Mr. Kocmoud
testified that the ratings of group leaders carried slight weight in determining whether or
not an employee was to receive a merit increase ." Nor does the Company state its position in
respect to whether or not the exercise of this authority is of a mere routine or clerical
nature , or whether it requires the use of independent judgment.
As to the latter criteria , it is obvious that the group leaders must use a degree of in-
dependent judgment in scoring the 12 specified qualifications of their employees . With respect
to the possession and exercise of the authority to make merit ratings of other employees,
and the Company ' s apparent position that such recommendations carry no weight , the evidence
is clear that recommendations are permitted , indeed, they are required to be made. They
are discussed and considered along with all other ascertained facts and factors by Love and
Kocmoud in reaching their ultimate decision . Consequently , it is concluded that such recom-
7 The only exceptions are J . Dunka, L. Hawrysko , M. Lesny, C . Goss, J. Potokar , N. Wos,
and R . Benkowski . As noted hereinafter , these employees did not , at the time of the election,
rate the employees under them.
8Boxes for subtotals , totals , and a box for grand totals also appear on the merit - rating
sheets. These are filled in, on the basis of a code, by Love and Kocmoud after the group
leaders have determined the performance factors.
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mendations are effective , and that the Company ' s contention to the contrary must be re-
jected. 9
7. Authority to direct and assign work; rates of pay
While it is a general rule that each group leader works from a production schedule which
issues from the superintendent' s office , the types of work assignments , the amount of time
spent directing other employees in their work , and the degree of responsibility and in-
dependent judgment exercised in connection therewith varies considerably among different
group leaders . It therefore becomes necessary to consider these matters independently as
they operate in each department and as they relate to each individual group leader.
Similarly , although all group leaders are higher paid than the employees under them, the
difference in pay between the various group leaders and the employees under them cannot be
generalized . 10 The number of employees under each group leader also will be noted.
a. Graphic department (Frank Baran)
The graphic department is engaged in the manufacture of glue or composition rollers.
F. Baran , a group leader who has been with the Company since 1946 , daily receives a work
schedule sheet from the plant superintendent ' s office which indicates the number of orders
to be cast and delivered . According to Kocmoud , he spends about 95 percent of his time at
physical work which involves the mixing and preparing of graphic material , the casting of
rollers in molds , and the trimming of rollers for shipment . Beside Baran there are 2 other
employees in this department , 1 a helper and the other a composition maker . The helper
assists Baran in the preparation of cores and otherwise performs routine lifting and carrying
chores; the composition maker, who'has been with the Company for 30 years , makes coating
composition , an operation at which he is an expert and one which he daily performs with no
assistance or guidance from Baran.
Baran ' s principal responsibility, according to Kocmoud , is to see that the schedule sheet is
followed. In addition to this and the physical work he performs , Baran reports to Kocmoud's
office the number of rollers manufactured and the number of pounds of material consumed.
He makes out his own and the helper ' s timesheet , and every 6 months prepares merit-rating
sheets for the helper and the composition maker . His hourly pay is 10 cents more than the
composition maker and 20 cents more than the helper.
b. O-X department (Anton Bialas)
The O-X department has two employees in addition to A. Bialas, group leader since 1946.
Bialas receives daily production schedules made out by a production clerk which lists the
the type and number of orders to be produced. He spends about 95 percent of his time in the
actual work of making setups for the preparation of cores so that they can be cast and in-
serted into metal cylinders , this being preparatory to a "shooting" process. The other two
employees engage themselves in processes of casting , vulcanizing , and operating a hydraulic
gun to shoot a variety of size molds . Bialas makes out the merit rates for the other 2 em-
ployees in his department and he earns 21 cents per hour more than they do.
c. Grinding department (Samuel Frith)
The grinding department employs eight people exclusive of Group Leader S. Frith who
has been with the Company since 1927. The function of this department consists of grinding
various types of rubber covered rollers to standard or finished diameters . It contains ap-
proximately 16 grinding machines which are operated by the employees. Frith's own testi-
mony, which is credited, gives an unusually clear picture of his duties , as follows:
Well, I come in in the morning and pick up our daily work sheet ... and then I figure
out the person that I want to run each job, and I schedule the work out like that , and then
9In further support of this finding, reference is made to Love 's concession in his testi-
mony that "we don 't think that we can give an employee a fair rating unless we have that
opinion from the group leader."
10 The Company had available only the rates of the group leaders and the next highest paid
employee under the group leader in each department . Therefore, the comparison of rates
between group leaders and employees under them may not always be truly representative of
the average degree of differential.
IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 941
I do some set up work, and some of the newer employees that don't know how to set up
the machines. I help them, and then go back and during the day I see how the job is com-
ing on, make any set ups that are necessary and keep a watch out for the orders that are
going through the department , and sort of help the gang along , to get the work out. u
Kocmoud testified that Frith spends 80 percent of his time in manual labor, but Frith
testified that only 25 percent of his time was spent in doing physical work. While this rather
wide discrepancy might be attributed to unintentional exaggeration , it appears reasonable
to find, and I so conclude, that Frith divides his time performing physical work and directing
the work of other employees , including the training of new employees . In support thereof it is
noted that there are about twice as many machines in the grinding department as there are
employees. The production sheets indicate the type of work to be performed but they do not
specify which employees are to be assigned to which machines, this selection being left to the
discretion of Frith.
Frith daily makes out the timesheets and twice a year makes out merit- rating sheets for
all employees in his department. He receives 14 cents per hour more than the next highest
paid employee in his department
d Rocket department (John Gutjahr)
The function of this department is to manufacture rocket rollers J. Gutjahr, an employee
of the Company for 28 years, is group leader of this department However, 6 months before
the election and for 6 months thereafter, Gutjahr was the only employee in this department
and he spent his entire working time there alone inasmuch as there were no employees
under Gutjahr in the rocket department duringthe period in question, a more detailed descrip-
tion of the duties and operations of this department is unnecessary, since Gutjahr obviously
held no supervisory status
e Rubber mix department (Peter Karasinski and W Lanting)
The rubber mix department is engaged in the manufacture of various rubber materials used
by the Company. The day shift, under Group Leader W Lanting, a company employee for 9
years, operates from 7 a in. to 4p. m.; the night shift under Group Leader Peter Karasinski,
a company employee for over 13 years, operates from 3 p. m to 12 a m Exclusive of the
group leaders, 6 employees during the period in question worked on the day shift and 3
on the night shift.
The flow of work in the rubber mix department begins on the day shift with Karasinski
initially receiving the production schedule and batch tickets which indicate the type of material
to be used, the poundage to be used, the method of calenderingt etc. Karasinski and the three
men who work with him are principally engaged in mixing materials in accordance with
formulas issued by the Company's research department. Karasinski assists the other em-
ployees by showing them how to mix "fancy" batches and special mixes. He also keeps
records of pounds weighed and mixed, fills out batch tickets, makes out timesheets, and
consults with Kocmoud regarding projected work production.
The day shift of this department is principally engaged in extruding, straining, and calender-
ing materials which are mixed by the night shift. Rubber mills, calenders, and tubers are used
by the employees in this department, but they also perform semihand work.
Kocmoud testified that Karasinski spends 60 percent of his time doing the same work as the
other employees and that he spends 40 percent of his time directing others and doing routine
clerical work. 12 Karasinski, however, testified that while he physically assists others in
their work, he spends a majority of his time "helping and giving instructions to one of the
other men." The record clearly indicates that Karasinski spends at least 50 percent of his
time directing men in the mixing procedure , and I so find . Karasinski has also assigned new
men to specific jobs. If anything goes wrong with the machinery during the course of the
night shift, he has authority to call Hulse, group leader of the maintenance department.
Lanting's duties and responsibilities are practically identical to those of Karasinski's.
Kocmoud testified that Lanting spends 20 percent of his time in clerical work and directing
the work of others, the remainder performing physical work. In view of Karasinski's testi-
ll Frith also testified that he pointed out mistakes to the employees under him. In addition,
Frith at times also operates the various machines in the department.
i2Clerical work in this department involves the making out of batch tickets, timesheets,
and requisitions.
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mony, 13 it is concluded that Lanting spends at least 25 percent of his time , or more , direct-
ing the work of others.
Karasmski and Lanting make out merit ratings for the employees on their shifts and they
are paid 15 cents and 9 cents more per hour , respectively , than the next highest paid em-
ployees under them.
f. Maintenance department (E. Hulse)
Exclusive of Group Leader E. Hulse, there is a total of 8 employees in the maintenance de-
partment . Three are stationary engineers , 2 are electricians , 2 are maintenance men, and 1
is an oiler . Hulse , an employee of approximately 30 years , answers to Eichholz , plant engi-
neer.
The maintenance department performs the necessary maintenance and repair work on the
Company's machinery and equipment. As described by Hulse, the employees in this department
"are constantly working in different parts of the shop . Some are in plumbing ; some on elec-
trical work and some on mechanical maintenance."
Hulse receives daily job tickets, generally madeoutby other groups leaders, which indicate
the various maintenance and repair jobs which are to be performed . It is Hulse' s duty to
specify and assign the men in his department to various maintenance work around the plant.
Thereafter , as Hulse testified , " I keep in touch with them . I go around every once in a while
and see what they are doing , and see how they are coming along, and if they get up against
anything and want my advice, then they come to me." Hulse also performs maintenance work
which occupies, according to Kocmoud, 50 percent of his time. In addition, he daily checks the
timesheets of his men and requisitions materials needed by his department.
If emergency repair work is required at night , the night group leaders call Hulse at home
and he will go to the plant , usually without consulting Eichholz or Kocmoud , and perform the
work himself. He will , however , call Kocmoud if other maintenance employees besides him-
self are necessary to go to the plant at night . Hulse makes out the merit - rating sheets for all
the employees in the maintenance department and he receives 16 cents per hour more than
the next highest paid employee in the department.
g. Litho department (W. Kaste)
The function of the litho department involves the centrifuging of vulcanized material into a
metal core. Exclusive of W. Kaste, a company employee for 30 years, 4 other employees work
in this department . Each one of them, including Kaste, engages in a specific operation which
he performs daily. Kaste is rated as a "wax and shell man" and performs the first step in
the operation consisting of the application of wax and shell material to a metal core. The
operation thereafter is a continuous one, passed on to employees classified as lithomixer,
lithospecials maker, coreman, and lithotrimmer, respectively. According to Kocmoud, Kaste
spends about 95 percent of his time performing his particular job as wax and shell man. His
other duties require him to check off a daily production schedule, which he receives daily,
and to make out timesheets for the other employees. He rates the other employees in the litho
department every 6 months and is paid 11 cents more per hour than the next highest man.
h. tMultigraph department (Lloyd Kornoelje)
The multigraph department is engaged in the manufacture of small vulcanized oil rollers
and is headed by L. Kornoelje, group leader, a company employee of 30 years Like the litho
department , the employees here are engaged in repetitive line operations . Kornoelje is a
coreman and spends, according to Kocmoud , 95 percent of his time performing the operations
called for by this job classification. There are three other employees in this department who
are classified as shellman , waxman, and trimmer, respectively . Kornoelje is given a monthly
projected schedule indicating the amount and type of work to be performed ; from this sched-
ule he directs the wo' k of the other employees. In addition to his regular duties as coreman,
he checks the production schedule and worksheets , makes out timesheets for the other em-
ployees, and requisitions materials . He rates the other employees every 6 months and is paid
11 cents more per hour than the next highest man in his department.
iSGroup Leader Lanting did not testify.
IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 943
i. Stock preparation department (John Ruse)
The function of this department is to strip and remove rubber and excess material from
roller cores which are to be further processed . Exclusive of Group Leader Ruse , a company
employee of 10 years , there are 3 employees on the day shift and 2 on the night shift . During
the day Ruse and another employee work on core stripping machines , while the other 2 em-
ployees engage in sand blasting The 2 men on the night shift perform work equivalent to that
done during the day . 14 The work in this department is highly repetitive and is scheduled by a
daily production sheet . Ruse spends approximately 95 percent of his time performing the
physical work of stripping . He also makes out timesheets for the other employees , checks the
worksheets used in this department , and requisitions materials . Ruse makes out the rating
sheets for all employees in this department , including the 2 who work on the night shift. In
this connection it is noted that the night shift overlaps the day shift by one-half hour and that
Ruse thus works with and is able to observe the 2 night -shift men for this period each day
Ruse is paid 15 cents more per hour than the next highest paid employee in this department.
j. Receiving department (Stanley Skibicki)
This department receives crated rollers and other materials used by the Company and has
3 employees exclusive of Group Leader S. Skibicki , an employee of 24 years . The employees
in the receiving department unload the trucks, count , weigh, and measure received materials,
and truck materials to the various departments.
Although Skibicki engages in the same work as the other employees , he directs the unloading
of trucks and instructs the others as to where the materials should be piled up or stored and
sends them to truck materials to different departments . Kocmoud testified that Skibicki spends
about 95 percent of his time performing physical work . Other than performing manual work
and directing the other employees , Skibicki also performs the necessary clerical work and
makes out timesheets for the other employees . He rates the others every 6 months and is
paid 24 cents per hour more than the next highest man.
k. Inspection department (Fred Schuster)
There are 3 employees in the inspection department , all classified as inspectors , exclusive
of Group Leader F. Schuster, an employee of 25 years. The function of this department is to
inspect all of the Company 's rollers for defects, each employee usually being assigned to in-
spect a specific type roller . Kocmoud testified that employees in this department have au-
thority to reject rollers but that they must first always refer such rejections to Schuster.
Schuster has authority to overrule rejects of other inspectors in this department when, in his
opinion , the defect is too small to warrant rejection. Kocmoud testified that Schuster spends
approximately 95 percent of his time performing inspection duties similar to the inspectors.
He also checks worksheets and makes out rejection tickets for defective rollers. He makes
out merit-rating sheets for the other employees every 6 months and is paid 13 cents and 23
cents more per hour than the 2 next highest paid employees in his department. 15
1. Shipping department (Joe Zon)
Joseph Zon , an employee of 18 years , is group leader of the shipping department which has
7 other employees . This department is primarily concerned with the boxing , packing , crating,
and loading of rollers for shipment.
Zon is responsible for seeing that shipments are made in accordance with shipping schedules.
To that end he directs other employees by telling them which orders to fill and which boxes to
pack . If the boxes are improperly packed by the other employees, Zon can reject them and
have them redo the work properly. Routing orders are issued by the order department, and
i4 There is no group leader for the two employees who do this work on the night shift.
i5Concerning Schuster, the Company states: (see Union E. No. 2) "Schuster ... also has
supervisory authority over the company 's production and maintenance employees .... This
employee has supervisory authority over the company's production and maintenance em-
ployees insofar as he has the authority to accept or reject the work of all these employees
insofar as this work does not meet standards established in accordance with company policy.
He can accept or reject the work of any production department and as such exercises a
control that no other employee on that list has."
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kocmoud testified that Zon cannot change the routing of orders unless he consults with the
office. However, Zon credibly testified , " I should call the office on that, but in some cases
where a truck is in and it could be re - routed I usually change the routing on it „ It is undis-
puted that Zon may keep the other employees overtime to unload a truck if it has pulled up at
the dock at the normal quitting time
Zon also performs the necessary clerical work in this department which includes billing
and listing shipments , requisitioning , and the like.
According to Kocmoud , Zon spends approximately 70 percent of his time on manual labor
He makes out the merit- rating sheets for other shipping department employees , and is paid
12 cents more per hour than the next highest paid employee.
m. Molded goods department (C. Goss, J. Potokar,
R Benkowski , M. Wos , and Mary Lesny)
The molded goods department , which is broken down into three subdepartments , as herein-
after described , is engaged in the manufacture of molded rubber products . Since January 28,
1952, the entire department has been under the general supervision of Foreman Leslie
Phillips. Prior to this time, C. Goss was foreman in charge of this department , and Phillips
was then assistant plant superintendent . 16 In the fall of 1951, the Company decided to re-
lieve Phillips of his other plant duties and to place him in charge of the molded goods depart-
ment . Phillips gradually took over this department starting in about November 1951, and on
January 28 , 1952, was officially made foreman and relieved Goss of that capacity.17
The molded goods department is broken down into three departments viz: The stock prep-
aration and trim department , the molded goods manufacturing department , and the molded
goods inspection department The largest of these is the molded goods manufacturing de-
partment which operates in three shifts with Group Leader Potokar in charge of the day
shift, R . Benkowski m charge of the night shift ( from 4 p. in. to 1 a . m.), and M . Wos in charge
of the late shift ( 12 a. in . to 9 a . m.). Goss is group leader of the stock preparation and trim
department and Mary Lesny , group leader of the molded goods inspection department.
Wos, Potokar , Benkowski , and Lesny were group leaders in their same capacity before
Phillips took over as foreman . Prior to 1952 , Goss rated all the employees in the overall
molded goods department , except that Potokar rated the employees on his shift. i6
C. Goss presently is group leader over 20 women in the stock preparation and trim depart-
ment . They are engaged in trun,ning parts and also do some assembly work . Goss works
from specification sheets which designate the type of preparation or trim to be performed.
He does not do the same work as the women employees in this department , but is concerned
with moving raw materials to this department . Kocmoud estimated that this takes about 70
percent of his time, the remainder being spent in assigning work to other employees , making
out their timesheets , and entering the number of pieces processed on routing tickets. Where
special jobs are involved. Goss works them out with Phillips . Although Goss no longer makes
merit ratings , Phillips consults Goss about them when merit - rating time comes around. Goss
receives 42 cents per hour more than the next highest paid employee in this department.
The employees in the molded goods manufacturing department spent the majority of their
time operating 28 molding presses located there . Phillips daily makes out 3 production sheets,
1 for each shift , which are initially handed to Potokar and are then passed on from shift to
shift. Although the worksheets usually designate which employees are to be assigned to the
various molding machines . Kocmoud testified that the group leaders determine which type of
molds are to be used in the various machines for different jobs. At the time of the election,
there were 17 employees on the day shift , 10 employees on the night shift , and 5 employees on
the late shift.19
According to the testimony of Kocmoud , Group Leaders Benkowski . Potokar, and Wos
spent 95 percent of their time operating presses . In this connection , Potokar, who was the
only group leader of the three called as witness , testified as follows:
16 According to the Company, although Phillips was then concerned with all production
departments under the plant superintendent, his primary concern was the molded goods
department.
17 Goss suffered a 5-cent hourly loss of pay when he was relieved by Phillips.
is It is noted that Benkowski and Wos were not made group leaders until March 14, 1951,
and August 2, 1951, respectively, at which times they replaced previous group leaders. Lesny
was made group leader on October 5, 1948 and made out the merit-rating sheets for the
employees in the molded goods inspection department for about the first year thereafter.
i9During this time Benkowski and Potokar alternated on the day and night shifts.
IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 945
Well, I would take ... the schedule and go around , and see what stock is there, in order
to run the job on the schedule . Sometimes there are jobs that there is no stock for, where
there is a major breakdown . There is quite a few things overall in the picture ... but I
would see three-quarters of the schedule would normally be run . So it was all set as far
as the jobs are concerned , and when the people came in , I would set them up at their own
place that I had for the job they are on, and if the job called for it, any job. And I would
explain it to them if they had never ran the job before, because in that department there
are always jobs coming and going . In other words , there are jobs to be run that they
might not have run before , and you have to explain to them how to go about running the
job.
Potokar further testified that he works at a machine himself "off and on" and that about 50
percent of his time is spent in " supervision."
Again, probably both Kocmoud and Potokar exaggerated their opinion as to the amount of
time spent by Potokar in directing other employees . Taking into consideration the number of
machines and employees involved in the operations of this department , it appears that Potokar
spends about 25 to 35 percent of his time in the assignment of work and in the direction and
assistance of other employees , and the undersigned so finds. Inasmuch as Kocmoud testified
that the duties of Benkowski and Wos are identical to the duties of Potokar , and that their au-
thority is equivalent to his , it is found that their time is apportioned the same as Potokar's.
Potokar, Benkowski , and Wos , respectively , receive 36 cents, 20 cents, and 14 cents more
per hour than the next highest employee on their shift.
The molded goods inspection department , as its name indicates , is engaged in the inspection
of the various molded rubber goods products which are examined for defects . Mary Lesny,
group leader , and an employee of the Company for 9 years , is in charge of 9 other female
employees who work there. Two girls are exclusively engaged in the packing and inspection
of an item called a Babson inflation . Another girl is exclusively engaged in the inspection of
Sunbeam coffee rings. Lesny determines which jobs the others are to perform and advises
them accordingly . Lesny also performs routine inspection which , according to Kocmoud, oc-
cupies about 95 percent of her time . She is paid 13 cents per hour more than the next highest
paid girl in her department.
n. Buffing department (Edward Shaffer and Joseph Dunka)
The buffing department has 6 employees exclusive of Group Leader Edward Shaffer, 20 an
employee of 22 years . The employees here are engaged in grinding , polishing , buffing, and
trimming vulcanized rollers. Shaffer lays out the work of the other men in accordance with
production schedules which he receives from Kocmoud 's office . He also acts as setup man
for special types of rollers and does some buffing and trimming . In addition , he countersigns
the timesheets of the other employees and checks the worksheets.
J. Dunks once acted as group leader for the late shift, but it was abandoned prior to the
election . Shaffer testified that when the night shift was dropped , Dunka returned to days and
acted as his assistant . However, while the night shift was still on, Shaffer countersigned the
timesheets for the night- shift employees in this department.
According to Kocmoud , Shaffer spent approximately 95 percent of his time in physical
work. Shaffer , to the contrary , credibly testified that he spent approximately one-third of his
time on " supervision ." zi Accordingly, it is found that Shaffer spends at least 25 percent of
his time assisting and directing the work of other employees.
Shaffer makes out the merit-rating sheets for all employees in the buffing department and,
with the exception of Dunka, is paid 18 cents more per hour than the other employees.
o. Rubber roller department (Richard Griggs and L. Hawrysko)
There are 13 employees in the rubber roller department exclusive of Group Leader R.
Griggs, who has been an employee of the Ccmpany for over 18 years. The function of this de-
ioShaffer was demoted from group leader sometime after the election and at that time
received a 5-cent hourly pay cut.
21 Shaffer testified that after he had assigned work to the men from the production schedule,
and after he had set up machines, he would "then go and run a machine by myself until some-
body got in trouble." Shaffer also testified that he frequently, almost every day, consulted
with F . Schuster , group leader of the inspection department , concerning rejects and that they
"talked back and forth on problems that came up, because that was my job, to get a product
that he would pass through inspection."
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS HOARD
partment is to build a variety of small and large rubber rollers. Of the 13 employees, 2 are
women who work at benches or tables and are engaged in applying paint or cement to metal
cores with paint brushes. The men perform various hand operations such as the application
of rubber to a metal core, the stripping or removing of tape from cured rollers, and the
collaring of rollers. Two roller building machines and 2 wrapping machines in this depart-
ment are operated by 3 employees who have had 15 to 20 years' experience operating them.
Most of the employees in this department perform repetitive work. When necessary, Griggs
assigns new employees to specific jobs which he selects. A daily production schedule and
worksheets are placed on a table, accessible to all employees in this department, which they
refer to during the course of the day.
Griggs spent approximately 70 percent of his time performing manual work which princi-
pally consists of trucking metal cores from the stock preparation department to the rubber
roller department and trucking stripped completed rollers to the grinding department; he
rarely does the same work performed by the other employees. At least 15 percent of Griggs'
time, according to the testimony of Kocmoud, is spent directing other employees or, as stated
in Union Ex. No. 2, "aiding men in the department in their required sequence of production."
In addition, Griggs keeps the curing sheets and records of cures, he checks the worksheets
issued by the superintendent's office, stamps cures and bonds on orders, and makes out requi-
sitions for required materials used in his department
The Company operates sporadic night shifts in the rubber roller department, depending
upon the urgency of work. L. Hawrysko acts as group leader when the night shift is running.
There was no night shift at the time of the election and Hawrysko at that time worked on the
day shift under Griggs. There are at most 1 or 2 employees on the night shift besides Griggs
When the night shift operates, Hawrysko receives worksheets from Griggs and reports to
Griggs the progress of his shift.
Griggs makes the merit ratings for all employees in the rubber roller department. At the
time of the hearing, a night shift was operating and Kocmoud testified that he did not know
who rated the night-shift employees "except that we turn the sheets over to Griggs." Griggs
is paid 24 cents per hour more than the next highest paid employee in this department.
II. THE ALLEGED NON MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE (HATTIE NOVAK)
The vote of Hattie Novak, whose job title is janitress, was challenged by the Union because
she allegedly does not work in the plant. It is undisputed that she was an employee at the time
of the election. During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that the real basis of
the Union's challenge was that Novak spent the majority of her time working in the offices,
rather than in the production departments, and that therefore she should be excluded. rt
Novak works between the hours of 5:30 p. in. and 12 a. m. Her duties principally con-
sisted of cleaning, dusting, and sweeping the Company's main office and laboratory. 23 She
also requisitions materials when necessary. Like other production and maintenance employees,
she is hourly paid and punches a time clock. She is under the supervision of the plant super-
intendent as are the two other janitors.
Ill. THE ALLEGED STATIONARY ENGINEER (JOHN PICCONY)
The vote of John Piccony was challenged by the Company because he allegedly is a stationary
engineer and stationary engineers were excluded from the unit agreed to.
The Company has two employees who have the job title of "stationary engineer-watchmen."
One works on the late afternoon shift and the other on the midnight shift. These employees
check and maintain two boilers which are located in the boilerroom. They also pull clocks
as watchmen, adjust cures, check high pressure pumps in the molding department, and load
and unload rollers into a vulcanizer. They are licensed by the city of Chicago, by local
ordinance.
The Company lists Piccony's job title as "pipe fitter-fireman." He works on the day shift,
has a license from the city as a stationary engineer , and performs the same work in the
boilerroom as the stationary engineers on the late shifts As a pipefitter he repairs broken
lines, threads pipes , and replaces lines throughout the plant.
"Maintenance employees were included in the unit agreed to in the stipulation for certifi-
cation upon consent election. Two male janitors voted and were not challenged by the Union.
"There is some dispute, and the testimony is in conflict, as to whether or not Novak
cleans the women's washroom. In view of the ultimate disposition of the Union's contention
concerning the eligibility of Novak to vote, it is unnecessary to decide this point.
IDEAL ROLLER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 947
Kocmoud testified that the men on the night shift spent only about 20 percent of their time
in the boilerroom , the remainder spent in the other types of work indicated , and that Piccony
spends half of his time in the boiler room u and half of his time about the plant performing
pipefitting work.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A. The disputed group leaders
It heretofore has been found that group leaders do not possess authority to hire , discharge,
discipline , or to effectively recommend such action , nor do they possess authority to assign
overtime or to make permanent transfers . On the other hand, it has been found that group
leaders possess authority to effectively recommend permanent and temporary transfers and
that they also possess authority to grant favors , such as time off. In addition , they train new
employees , participate in foremen 's meetings and, with the exceptions previously noted,
make merit ratings. They are, as a whole , substantially higher paid than are the other
employees.
The Company 's position seems to be that the authority of group leaders to assign work
and the authority to responsibly direct employees is of a routine nature and does not require
use of independent judgment because the group leaders work from production schedules or
worksheets which cover the details to be performed . Except for those cases where it has been
found that 95 percent of the group leader 's time is spent in performing physical work similar
to that of other employees , the undersigned cannot subscribe to this view . These group
leaders who spend between 25-50 percent of their time in directing other employees clearly
must determine the comparative skills of the employees available , and they must evaluate
the skills required by the job to be done . Moreover , in assigning and directing employees to
perform work scheduled to be done in the department , these group leaders usually must
select the employees who are to perform a particular job or who are to work at a particular
machine . % In addition , they are responsible for the sequence in the flow of work in their
departments ; they are responsible for meeting the daily or weekly production quota ; and they
are responsible for the entire manufacturing process under their jurisdiction . In view of the
foregoing , it is concluded that those group leaders who spend 25 percent or more of their
time assigning and directing employees possess and exercise the authority to responsibly
direct and assign work to such employees ; that the exercise of such authority is not of a
routine nature , and that the exercise of such authority requires the use of independent judg-
ment.
The undersigned regards the group leaders ' participation in foremen ' s meetings and their
role in making merit ratings as significant factors to be considered in resolving the super-
visory issue . Attendance at foremen ' s meetings is generally regarded as a function as-
sociated with management . ae The possession and exercise of authority to make merit ratings,
which have been found to be effective , clearly relate to promotions , certainly to the extent
of affecting the employees ' increases in rates of pay. n
However , notwithstanding these considerations , the undersigned is of the opinion that those
group leaders who spend only 5 percent of their time assigning work and directing employees
are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act . These group leaders are engaged in the
same type of work as other employees in their departments . Since the employees in these
departments are engaged in routine and repetitive work , it cannot be said that they are
responsibly directed by the group leaders concerned . Consequently , it is concluded that F.
Baran, A. Bialas, J Gutjahr, W. Kaste, L. Kornoelje , J. Ruse, S. Skibicki , F. Schuster,
i4Kocmoud testified that Piccony actually performs more work in connection with his
boilerroom duties than do the night men because he, with the assistance of another main-
tenance man , cleans the boilers; the night men do not clean the boilers . Piccony did not
testify.
is Other than the evidence heretofore discussed , Love testified that group leaders, after
receipt of the work schedules , "assign the work to the various men or apportion the work to
the various men."
29 See Salant & Salant , Inc., 92 NLRB 417 atp . 422. See also United States Gypsum Company,
92 NLRB 18, where the Board noted , among other things , that employees it found to be non-
supervisory did not attend foremen's meetings . More analogous to the instant case , however,
is a later United States Gypsum Company case reported at 93 NLRB 91.
27 See Gulf Oil Corporation , 90 NLRB 1607 , at pp . 1611, 1612.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. Dunka , L. Hawryska , and M Lesny were not, at the time of the election , supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. ze
The undersigned is equally convinced that those group leaders who spend 25 to 50 percent
of their time assigning work and directing employees are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act. Not only has it been found that these employees responsibly direct the work of
others, but in addition they possess and exercise the other indicia of supervisory authority
previously noted . It herefore is concluded that S . Frith, P . Karasinski , W. Laming, E. Hulse,
J. Zon , C. Goss, J. Potokar , R. Benkowski , R. Griggs , E. Shaffer , and N. Wos were, at the
time of the election , supervisors within the meaning of the Act 29
B. Hattie Novak
It is concluded that the Union's challenge of Hattie Novak for the reason that she allegedly
did not work in the plant is without merit . Novak works during the night and performs
janitorial work . Since janitors have been included in the unit , it is concluded that her status
was equivalent to that of the other two janitors who were not challenged.
C. J. Piccony
It having been found that J. Piccony spent as much time in the boilerroom as the two
stationary engineers on the night shifts , and that he performed the same type of boilerroom
work performed by them, it is concluded that J . Piccony should be excluded from the unit
as a stationary engineer in accordance with the unit description specified in the stipulation
for certification upon consent election.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) It has been concluded that F . Baran , A. Bialas, J. Gutjahr , W. Kaste , L Kornoelje,
J. Ruse, S. Skibicki , F. Schuster , J. Dunka , L. Hawryska , and M . Lesny, respectively, were
not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, as amended . It consequently is recommended
that the challenges to their votes be overruled
It has been concluded that S. Frith , P. Karasinski , W. Lanting , E. Hulse , J. Zon, C. Goss,
J. Potokar , R. Benkowski , R. Griggs , E. Shaffer , and N. Wos were supervisors within the
meaning of the Act , as amended . It is consequently recommended that the challenges to their
votes be sustained.
(2) It has been concluded that Hattie Novak performs janitorial work in the plant and that
she should be included in the unit set forth in the stipulation for certification upon consent
election . It is recommended that the challenge to her vote be overruled.
(3) It has been concluded that J . Piccony should be excluded from the unit as a stationary
engineer pursuant to the stipulation for certification upon consent election . It is recommended
that the challenge to his vote be sustained.
Because the challenges to the 12 specified persons have been sustained , the challenges to
the ballots of the 12 other specified persons need not be determined , as those challenged
ballots, even if counted , could not affect the results of the election . As a consequence, it is
further recommended that no action be taken to count the ballots cast by F. Baran, A.
Bialas , J. Gutjahr , W. Kaste , L. Kornoelje, J. Ruse , S. Skibicki , F. Schuster , J. Dunka, L.
Hawryska , M. Lesny , and Hattie Novak ; and that upon the basis of the valid votes counted in
the election held on April 15 , 1952, as shown by the tally of ballots heretofore issued therein,
but disregarding all challenged ballots, a certification of the results of the election , including
28J. Gutjahr , J. Dunka , and L . Hawryska have been found not to be supervisors within the
meaning of the Act for the further reason that they were not in charge of any employees and
did not act as group leaders at the time of the election.
29 Although C. Goss, J. Potokar, N Wos, and R. Benkowski did not make merit ratings for
the employees in their department during the time in question , it has been found that these
group leaders responsibly directed other employees and that they possessed authority to
effectively recommend transfers and to grant time off. They also trained new employees and
attended the foremen 's meeting Moreover , Benkowski and Wos were group leaders on night
shifts and had authority to call Hulse or the plant superintendent . The Board has held that the
possession of such authority, in the absence of other foremen, is an indicia of supervisory
authority . See Pan American Refining Corporation, 85 NLRB 1506 , and Fab - Weld Corporation,
74 NLRB 1364. In this connection, it is noted that the plant superintendent and the other
foremen leave the plant at 5 o 'clock. The Company 's position , which is rejected , is that no
one with supervisory authority works with other employees on the night shifts.
JEWEL PAINT AND VARNISH COMPANY 949
a certification of representatives, be issued in accordance with the provisions of Section
102.61 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , Series 6, as amended.
As provided in the order directing hearing on challenged ballots, any party may, within
10 days from the date of the issuance of the report , file with the Board in Washington, D. C.,
an original and six copies of exceptions thereto . Upon filing such exceptions , the party filing
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file one copy with
the Regional Director . If no objections are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recom-
mendations of the hearing officer.
JEWEL PAINT AND VARNISH COMPANY, Petitioner and
PAINT, VARNISH, LACQUER & ALLIED PRODUCTS,
LOCAL 950, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS
& PAPERHANGERS and MISCELLANEOUS WAREHOUSE-
MEN, LOCAL 781, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS
OF AMERICA. Case No. 13-RM-142. May 12, 1953
DECISIONAND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed and pursuant to stipulation for
certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot
was held in this proceeding on November 25, 1952, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region. 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 showed that,
of approximately 50 eligible voters, 15 cast valid ballots for,
and 33 cast valid ballots against, the Union.
On December 1, 1952, the Union filed objections to the
election, alleging, in substance, that the Employer, by its
supervisors and agents, issued leaflets and questioned,
threatened, and promised benefits to its employees, so as to
interfere with their freedom of choice in the election. The
Union requested that the election be set aside and a new
election directed.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director investigated the matters raised by the
objections and, on January 30, 1953, issued and served on the
parties his report on objections, in which he found that
certain alleged acts mentioned above raised material and
substantial issues with respect to the election and therefore
recommended that a hearing be held to resolve the issues.
On February 11, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the
report and recommendation.
On February 17, 1953, the Board,' having considered the
Regional Director's report and the Employer's exceptions
thereto, found that the objections raised substantial and ma-
terial issues of fact with respect to the election, and ordered
a hearing on the issues. The Board further ordered the hearing
'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 Styles and Peterson].
104 NLRB No. 112.
283230 0 - 54 - 61