The Connecticut Electrical Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1449 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE CONNECTICUT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO. 1449'
(2) All electricians regularly assigned to the pulp and paper mill,.
excluding all other employees.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this,
volume.]
THE CONNECTICUT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO. and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKrms, A. F. L., PETI-
TIONER . Case No. 1-RC-1770. June 25, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections 1 in the above--
entitled proceeding, the Regional Director for the First Region con--
ducted a representation election among the employees of the Employer-
at Bantam, Connecticut, on January 5, 1951.
Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished.
the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The tally shows that of approximately 61 eligible voters, 61 voted..
Twenty-nine valid votes were cast for the Petitioner, 28 against, and-
4 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, on January 9, 1951, the Employer filed timely objec-
tions to the conduct affecting the result of the election and requested'
an investigation and hearing on the issue of the challenged ballots.
After an investigation, the Regional Director issued a consolidated
report on objections and challenges in which he recommended that the-
Petitioner's challenges to the ballots of four group leaders be sustained
and the objections be overruled. On February 13, 1951, the Employer
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
. Upon notice duly served, a hearing on the objections and challenges.
was held before Torbert H. Macdonald, hearing officer of the National
Labor Relations Board on April 5, 1951. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are-
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following findings :
The Employer's objections to the conduct of the election go to the.
propriety of the Board agent's conduct in impounding the ballots
of four group leaders, which were challenged by the Petitioner on the
ground that they were supervisors within the meaning of the amended..
Act. We agree with the Regional Director that the impounding of
the challenged ballots by the Board agent, pending determination of-
'Unpublished decision , dated December 12, 1950.
94 NLRB No. 215.
1450 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this issue by the Board, was proper. Accordingly, the Employer's
4obj ections are hereby overruled.
The Challenged Ballots
Three of the group leaders whose ballots the Petitioner challenged
are each in charge of one of the Employer's production departments;
the fourth is in charge of the toolroom. These departments are lo-
cated on separate floors in the Employer's plant. The Employer
employs approximately 58 employees. It contends that the president-
treasurer, the vice president and production manager, and the plant
,.superintendent are the only supervisory personnel in the plant. Al-
though these individuals are regularly present in the plant, their
supervision of the various departments consists of several daily inspec-
tion tours rather than constant attendance. The record reveals that
the group leaders, who are discussed more particularly below, are
:responsible for maintaining the flow of production and the quality
of work in their respective departments. They assign employees to
various operations and frequently shift them from one machine to
.another. With the exception of the company officials and the plant
:superintendent, the group leaders are the only individuals who exercise
:.authority in the departments to which they are assigned. All of the
;group leaders are paid on a salary basis whereas the employees work--
ing under their direction are hourly paid.
Edward Canavan: He is group leader in the toolroom where he
,directs the work of two or three employees. He is a first class die
.maker and, in addition to his other duties, does design and layout
work. His pay is about 60 percent higher than the highest paid em-
ployee working under him. He inspects all dies, either newly made
,,or repaired, before they leave the toolroom. The record reveals that
-the Employer, when in doubt as to a prospective employee's ability,
requested Canavan to interview the individual and then submit an
,opinion concerning his qualifications for employment.
Kenneth G. Matthews: He directs the work of approximately 18
employees in Assembly "B". In addition to checking the quality and
quantity of the work produced by these employees, he acts as a setup
.man and does some production work. He is paid. approximately 331/3
-percent more than the highest paid employee in his department. He
does not have the authority to hire or discharge employees and testi-
fied that he does not make such recommendations. He further testi-
fied, however, that an employee petition to increase hourly rates was
left on his desk; that he took the petition to the vice president and.
production manager and discussed it with him. Subsequently, the
aatter discussed the petition with the employees. Matthews is respon-
THE CONNECTICUT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO. 1451
Bible for and assigns work to employees and initials time cards for late
-employees whose total monthly pay is affected thereby.
Edward Morgan: He is responsible for the work of the employees
in the pressroom, tapping room, and Type "A" room, referred to in
-the record as the basement group. A substantial portion of his time
is spent in production work. Morgan testified that employees have
-requested him for increases in pay and that he referred them to the
vice president and production manager. He testified further that he
.grants time off to employees, but that he does so only after consulting
the vice president and production manager. As do other group lead-
ers, he acts on his own initiative in shifting employees from one
machine to another and in assigning work 'to them.
Arthur Morgan: He directs the work of approximately 18 employees
in Assembly "A." Employees in the department testified without
contradiction that he held himself out to be "the boss"" and was re-
ferred to as such; that he checked the time they spent in the lavatory
-and wash rooms and berated them for staying away from their ma-
chines too long. The record also indicates that he has disciplined
employees and on one occasion told an employee she was fired. In
the latter instance the employee appealed to the vice president and
production manager who transferred her to another department.
On the basis of the foregoing we find that the four group leaders,
discussed above, whose ballots were challenged by the Petitioner, re-
sponsibly direct the employees in their respective departments and
therefore are supervisors within the meaning of the amended Act .2
In accordance with the recommendation of the Regional Director,
we hereby sustain the Petitioner's challenges to the ballots of Edward
Canavan, Kenneth G. Matthews, Edward Morgan, and Arthur Mor-
gan. Accordingly, as the Petitioner has received a majority of the
valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the bargaining representative
,of the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority
.of the production and maintenance employees of the Employer's man-
ufacturing plant at Bantam, Connecticut, including the tool makers
and machinists, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, and
.all supervisors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
2 The Wichita Water Company, 93 NLRB 895; Southland Manufacturing Company,
91 NLRB No. 38.
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBERS HOUSTON and REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Repre-
sentatives.
OTIS L. BROYHILL FURNITURE COMPANY and UPHOLSTERERS' INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA , A. F. OF L. Case No.
34-CA-154. June 26,1951
Decision and Order
On February 5, 1951, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report atached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Report.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and
modifications 4
1 The Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied because the exceptions,
brief, and record , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
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 [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Reynoldsr.
3 After the oral testimony had been completed , but before official closing of the hearing,
the General Counsel moved to delete the name of Walter Rash from any back -pay order,
because of his failure to obey a subpena issued at the request of the General Counsel.
The Trial Examiner denied the notion , because there was no evidence in the record that
the subpena had in fact been served on Rash or that he had refused to honor it. The
Respondent , but not the General Counsel , has excepted to this ruling. Rash , an employee
of the Respondent for about 5 years, had been active in behalf of the Union. He was
among those laid off on June 8, 1949. This mass layoff was, as we find below , discrimina-
tory. Hence , even without Rash's testimony the proof sustains the allegation of discrimi-
nation against him. Under all the circumstances , the Trial Examiner ' s ruling denying
the motion to delete Rash 's name from the remedial order was proper. Cf . American
Laundry Machinery Company, 45 NLRB 355 ; Atlanta Flour and Crain Company, Inc.,
41 NLRB 409.
4 On page 1468 , line 38 of his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner ascribes to Beach
the statement that orders did not begin until late June . The record shows, and we find,
that Jump made this statement . The reference to Beach in footnote 18 is similarly
changed to Jump.
Line 47, the sentence beginning with "If," page 1.468 , and ending with "week R0 " line 4,
page 1469 , of the Intermediate Report is also corrected to read as follows :
If, as Jump testified , the Respondent was on a 24 -hour, 3-day week before the layoff
that would indicate that for the first week of the June 2-15 pay period the Respond-
ent's approximately 230 employees worked a total of 5,520 regular man-hours.
Since a total of 12 ,948 man -hours were worked during the full pay period , this would
94 NLRB No. 232.