The Wright Line, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 849 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

THE WRIGHT LINE, INC. 849
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the
Act.
3. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
4. Respondent has not violated Section 8 ( a)(3) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
5. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
The Wright Line, Inc.' and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-5917. May 19, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Francis V.
Paone, hearing officer. His rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are affirmed?
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.3
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer 4
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section
9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
160 Gold Star Boulevard, Worcester, Massachusetts, plant, including
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 At the hearing , the hearing officer refused to permit the Employer to litigate the ques-
tion whether or not the Petitioner had complied with the requirements of the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 He referred to the Board the
Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that there is no showing that
the Petitioner had so complied We affirm the hearing officer's ruling and the motion is
hereby denied . Neither the Labor -Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 nor
the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended at the same time, requires compliance
with any of the requirements of the former Act as a condition precedent to the filing of
a petition
3 As the Employer's out-of-State purchases and sales each are valued in excess of $50,000,
the Board finds that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
Siemens Mailing Service. 122 NLRB 81
4 We find upon the record that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act
127 NLRB No. 104.
560940-61-vol i 27 55
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shipping room employees, plant clerical employees, and cafeteria
employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' The parties stipulated as to the above unit.
Gulf Bottlers , Inc. and International Union of United Brewery,
Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America,
AFL-CIO and Gulf Bottlers Employees ' Association , Inter-
ested Party
Gulf Bottlers, Inc. and International Union of United Brewery,
Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 15-CA-1448 and 15-CA-1514. May 20,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 27, 1959, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, together with supporting briefs.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the Case ,a and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
'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 Leedom and
Members Bean and Fanning].
2 The Respondent has moved to introduce additional documentary evidence or, in the
alternative , to reopen the hearing for the purpose of introducing documentary evidence
concerning the amount of former employee Walker's shortages the week before he was
discharged . As no contention has been made that the evidence which the Respondent
seeks to introduce was unavailable at the hearing or is newly discovered , we find that
the Respondent has not shown an adequate reason to support its motion, and the motion
is hereby denied. A. M. Andrews Company of Oregon, et al., 112 NLRB 626. We note,
however, that even if we were to permit the evidence to be introduced, we would not deem
it of sufficient probative force to warrant setting aside the Trial Examiner 's finding that
Walker was discriminatorily -discharged.
8 We agree with the Trial Examiner ' s finding that the Respondent 's driver-salesmen are
not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Wells Dairies Cooperative, 109 NLRB
1450; Southern Bleachery and Print Works. Inc., 115 NLRB 787. See also N.L.R.B. v.
Southern Bleachery & Print Works, Ino., 257 F. 2d 235 (C.A. 4 ), mfg. 118 NLRB 299,
cert. denied 359 U.S. 911.
127 NLRB No. 107.