Pent Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1186 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of counneree
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent. Charbonnean I'a(king Corporation, has
engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in 1 lie
case, I make the following :
CONcLUSioA5 OF LAW
1. Fruit and Vegetable Packers and W'arehouseinen's onin, Local Union No.
760, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, of the Act, the Respondent has engaged and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not discriminated as to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Coy Martin, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as alleged in the
complaint.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume ]
PENT ELECTRIC CO,IIPANY, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITEI
AUTO-MOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
PETITIONER . Case No. 7-RC-116&. August °20, 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 Jerome H. Brooks, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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, Reynolds, and Murdock].
i The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 The hearing officer properly overruled the Employer' s motion to adjourn the hearings
because of unfair labor practice charges which the Petitioner had filed against it. The
Petitioner has filed a waiver of Its right to object to any election directed herein on the
basis of the unfair labor practice charge which it has filed against the Employer, thus
leaving no basis for the Employer's motion. Cf. Harold F. Cross d/b/a Southwestern
Michigan Broadcasting Company , 92 NLRB No 230.
95 NLRB No. 165.
PENT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 1.187
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 to represent a unit of all employees of the
Employer at Peritwater, Michigan, excluding all office and clerical
employees, professional employees, salesmen, timekeepers, assistant
foreladies, assistant foremen, foreladies, foremen, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act. The Employer is in substantial agree-
ment with the unit requested. However, the parties are unable to agree
on the unit placement of nine individuals who are employed as table
leaders. The Petitioner desires their inclusion and the Employer con-
tends that they should be excluded as supervisors.
The Employer's plant consists of one plant building and a warehouse
located nearby., The Employer manufactures wiring harnesses and
electrical specialties. These operations are carried on at a number
of tables in the plant. Apparently all of the tables are located in one
area not widely separated from each other. The approximately 125
production' workers sit at the tables in groups of from 6 to 17 and work
under the supervision of the production supervisor. Each-table has
one -table leader who helps train the new employees and who. sees.
that the production flows smoothly from his table. The table leader
keeps sufficient materials on hand for the production workers to use.
in manufacturing.the items being produced at the table. The table
leader does not decide what items shall be, produced.
The Employer contends that the table leaders. are not required to.
perform production, work. The table leaders do . not have specific
work locations assigned to them but step into the production process
wherever it appears that help is needed. The only table leader who.
testified denied the Employer's assertion that the table leaders were.
told that they did not have to. engage in production work, and it
appears that at least several of them spend 90 percent of their time.
performing such work. The Employer asserted that the table leaders.
can effectively recommend the discharge or discipline of the other.
.workers, and"that they-had in fact-done so. 'Howevver, no instance of,
such an occurrence could be recalled. Although the table leaders can
request the transfer of an employee who is holding up the production
process, it appears that these changes are effected by the production
supervisor, after an independent investigation. The table leaders aret
hourly paid, receiving 15 cents more per hour than' the nonprobation
961974--52-vol. 95-76
1 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ary production workers . The table leaders enjoy the same vacation
benefits , overtime pay, bonuses , and other privileges as the other work-
ers. Although the ratio of supervisors to the number of employees
supervised is ordinarily accorded considerable weight by the Board
in determining the status of alleged supervisors ,s the Employer 's phys-
ical structure in the instant case makes it possible for the production
supervisor easily to observe the operations of the routine production
process and to make herself available at tables where the exercise of
supervisory authority is required . Under these circumstances, the
mere number of employees supervised by the production supervisor is
not controlling with regard to the supervisory status of the table
leaders.'
From the facts given above we find that the table leaders do not
responsibly direct the work of the production workers , and that they
do not in fact possess the authority effectively to recommend the hire,
discharge, or other change in their working conditions , and are not,
therefore , supervisors as defined in the Acte Accordingly , they are
included in the unit.
We find that all employees of the Employer at Pentwater , Michigan,
including the table leaders, but excluding all office and clerical em-
ployees, professional employees , salesmen , timekeepers , assistant fore-
ladies, assistant foremen, foreladies , foremen, guards , and supervisors,
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Employer employs several categories of workers it contends
are temporary and should not be eligible to vote in any election directed
herein. The Petitioner agrees that one of these categories, a small
group of high school students who work for the Employer during the
summer for brief period 's and who have no prospects of becoming
permanent employees , should not be eligible to vote, but the Petitioner
contends that the other workers whom the Employer would disqualify
should be permitted to vote.
Probationary employees . The Employer requires its new employees
to serve a 2-week probationary period before it considers them perma-
nent employees and almost all of the probationary employees are
retained at the end of the 2 -week period . We find that they are entitled
to vote.6
s Cf. F. B. Silverwood , a corporation d/b/a Silverwood 's, 92 NLRB 1114, and cases cited
therein.
4 Cf. Scott-Atwater Manufacturing . Company, Inc ., 90 -NLRB No. 9; compare United
States Gypsum Company, 93 NLRB 91.
5 Cf. Foster Wheeler Corporation, 94 NLRB 211 ; Radio Industries, Inc., 91 NLRB
cited therein.
Cf. Gerber Products Company, 93 NLRB 1266.
PENT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC . 1189
Seasonal employees. During the summer months between 30 and 40
employees sever their employment so that they may engage in other
enterprises. In the fall months the majority of them return to the
Employer and are reemployed if there are openings for them.7 The
Employer contends that these employees are mere temporary employees
whose employment is permanently severed when they leave its employ,
and that they are therefore not eligible to vote.' The record reveals,
however, that none of the nonprobationary employees are carried on
the payroll as "temporary" employees and the Employer has no knowl-
edge as to which of its employees will temporarily sever their employ-
.went during the summer months. The employees who do leave for
this period and return in the fall are treated no differently than any of
the other nonprobationary employees. The Employer permits em-
ployees who have been employed for 1 year, 1 week's vacation without
pay, and employees who have been employed for 2 years, 2 weeks' vaca-
tion without pay. It gives the employees who have not worked during
the summer months the same privilege. These employees receive the
same pay rates for the work that they perform as all other nonproba-
tionary employees performing the same work. The seasonal employ-
ees who return in the fall are not required to serve the 2-week proba-
:tionary period when they are reemployed. These employees enjoy
seniority rights based on the total number of years they have been with
the Employer rather than on their length of service since the date of
their last reemployment. At times these individuals have been placed
in the position of table leaders.
From all of the facts given above, we find that the employees who
have left the Employer to engage in summer work have a reasonable
expectancy of reemployment with the Employer in the near future 9
and are therefore eligible to vote 10
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 The record discloses no instance when such an employee has been refused reemployment
upon his request.
8 The Employer 'apparently seeks to disqualify those employees in this category who
have not left its employ for this summer by calling then "temporary employees," and
those who have left for the summer by- contending that they have permanently severed
their connections with, the Employer.
• A majority of the employees,jn this category have worked for the Employer for two
or more years.
10 Cf . Scott-Atwater Manufadturing Company, Inc., 90 NLRB -No. 9; Cherry and Webb
Company, Providence, 93 NLR$8.