United States Gypsum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The appropriate unit :
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All drivers and production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Schenectady, New York, plant, but excluding temporary em-
ployees, all office clerical employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
3 The parties are in agreement as to the appropriateness of the unit.
United States Gypsum Company and International Brotherhood
of Papermakers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 39-RC--10.5.
August 17,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clifford W. Potter, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
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 production and maintenance
unit comprised of employees at the Employer's recently opened paper
mill at Galena Park, Texas. The Intervenor and the Employer agree
as to the scope of the unit, but disagree as to the inclusion of the fol-
' At the hearing , the Galena Park Paper Mill Independent was permitted to intervene.
The Petitioner objected to the intervention on the ground that the Intervenor is not a
labor organization in being and does not have any real purpose of bargaining collectively
with the Petitioner . However, the record reveals that the Intervenor has a constitution
and bylaws duly accepted by its membership and that its representative testified, with-
out contradiction , that the Intervenor is ready, willing , and able to represent the em-
ployees who are the subject of this proceeding . Accordingly, we find the Intervenor to be
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
116 NLRB No. 91.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 657
lowing job categories: Tester, lead mechanic, lead electrician , checker
loading, checker unloading, refiner engineer, and machine tender.
The Employer would exclude all testers on the ground that they are
quality control employees and have no interest in common with the
production and maintenance employees. The Employer would also
exclude the other above-named categories on the ground that they are
supervisors who exercise independent judgment in directing the work
of those employees assigned to them and who possess the authority ef-
fectively to recommend personnel action. The Intervenor agrees with
the Employer except that it would include the machine tender and re-
finer engineer. The Petitioner would include all of the above-named
categories in the unit.
Testers: There are eight testers, all of whom work under the direct
supervision of a quality supervisor who is responsible to the quality
superintendent, the head of the quality department. Four of the
testers, known as quality testers, work in a separate laboratory re-
moved from the production area and perform tests on finished paper.
The other four, known as control testers, work at a control station in
the production area, performing tests on pulp stock at regular inter-
vals during production. However, all testers are trained to perform
laboratory and stock testing and are, or soon will be, interchangeable.
The tests they perform are highly technical in nature and require an
intensive training period.
We have frequently excluded laboratory testers from production
and maintenance units in other plants of the Employer including those
engaged in the manufacture of paper,2 because their work is technical
in nature, they are separately supervised, and they work for the most
part in a separate laboratory or testing station in the production area.
As the testers' duties and working conditions at the Galena Park
paper mill are substantially the same as those in the other cases in-
volving the same Employer, we shall exclude them from the produc-
tion and maintenance unit.
The lead mechanic: At the date of the hearing, the lead mechanic,
who spends less than 10 percent of his working time at nonsupervisory
maintenance work, was directly responsible to the assistant plant
engineering superintendent, who, in turn, reported to the plant engi-
neering superintendent, the person in charge of the engineering depart-
ment. However, the position of assistant plant engineering super-
intendent is a temporary one, soon to be eliminated at the end of the
current training period, and, eventually, the lead mechanic will re-
port directly to the plant engineering superintendent. The lead me-
chanic's chief responsibility is the direction of the work of 4 day me-
2 United States Gypsum Company, 91 NLRB 404, 405 and cases cited therein, United
States Gypsum Company, 81 NLRB 310
40544 8--5 7-vol 116-43
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chanics, 4 rotating shift mechanics , and 4 firemen , deciding the shifts
they should work, assigning them to specific jobs, and keeping the time
of the day mechanics . He also conducts the on-the -job training of
these individuals . For these responsibilities, the lead mechanics re-
ceive 5 to 45 cents more per hour in wages than do any of the employees
whom he directs . Concomitantly with these duties and responsibil-
ities the lead mechanic possesses the authority effectively to recom-
mend personnel action and is consulted with regard to the hiring of
any employee who is to work under his direction . Under these cir-
cumstances , and, although in all other respects he enjoys the same
fringe benefits as do the employees whom he directs , we find the lead
mechanic to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Lead electrician : Because the lead electrician possesses authority
and has responsibilities and duties very similar to those of the lead
mechanic, we find that he , too, is a supervisor and accordingly we shall
exclude him from the unit.
Checker unloading : As in the case of the lead mechanic and the lead
electrician , the checker unloading , at the date of the hearing, was re-
porting to a temporary supervisor, the warehouse foreman, whose
tenure was scheduled to end with the training period aforementioned.
Upon the warehouse foreman's leaving, the checker unloading will be
subordinate in authority , as far as unloading work is concerned, only
to the superintendent of the paper mill department , who heads the
actual production and warehousing process. The checker unloading's
main responsibility is to direct the work and training of five indi-
viduals who work in the warehouse and storage yard area . In that
capacity he is charged with the responsibility of unloading and ware-
housing all raw materials coming into the Employer 's plant, issuing
switch instructions to railroad crews, designating spots for cars to be
unloaded, and directing his crew of five in unloading the cars and
instructing them as to where and how to store the material in the
warehouse and yard area . He must maintain inventories at levels
necessary to insure a constant supply of raw materials. He is also
in complete charge of the yard area with regard to cleanliness and the
safety of the men who work there . Like the lead mechanic , he receives
a 5- to 45-cent differential in wages over his subordinates for this added
responsibility , and also like them, he possesses authority effectively to
recommend personnel action and assists in interviewing applicants for
positions which he supervises or will supervise . Accordingly , we con-
clude that he is a supervisor.
Checker loading : With regard to warehousing and loading finished
paper products , the duties and responsibilities of the checker loading
are analogous to those of the checker unloading with regard to unload-
ing. In the chain of authority his position is at the same level as that
of the checker unloading and, like him , he will be responsible only to the
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 659
paper mill superintendent when the warehouse superintendent leaves
at the end of the training period. In the direction of his one assistant
he is responsible for the sequence of shipments of paper, ordering cars
for loading, the manner of loading, storage in cars so as to prevent
loss and damage in transit, and for the safety and security of the man
he directs. Also, like the other individuals heretofore discussed, he is
paid more than his assistant in return for his assumption of supervisory
responsibilities and duties. Therefore, as he responsibly directs the
work of his assistant, we find him to be a supervisor.
Refiner engineer: There are four refiner engineers, who are on ro-
tating shifts, and work in the paper mill under the direction of a tour
foreman, who is responsible to a general mill foreman who, in turn,
reports to the paper mill superintendent. Of all of the foregoing,
the refiner engineer is the only person who actually works at the paper-
making process. Under the direction of his supervisors, the refiner
engineer on each shift is responsible for the production and preparation
of the stock from which the paper, which is the mill's sole product, is
made. This stock-making apparatus covers approximately 30,000
square feet and involves the operation of some very complicated but
also highly automatic machinery which reduces raw material such as
wood and waste paper into stock which is then fed into the paper-
making machine operated by the machine tender whose duties are
described below. Assisting the refiner engineer in the stock-making
processes are a hydrapulper operator, a lift-truck operator, and a stock
supply man. The work of these men is coordinated by the refiner engi-
neer, who, standing at a control panel in the refining area, gives certain
directions regarding the feeding of materials, the speed of the opera-
tion, and temperatures of the stock so as to maintain the flow of stock
qualitatively and quantitatively up to a level which insures a continuous
and adequate supply to the papermaking machine. For this-responsi-
bility and for his added skill, the refiner engineer receives a 15- to
25-cent-per-hour wage differential over that received by other refinery
area employees.
The Employer emphasizes the foregoing in contending that the posi-
tion of refiner engineer is supervisory and, in support thereof, sub-
mitted testimony that it has formally vested the refiner engineer with
the authority effectively to recommend personnel. action.
On the other hand, however, it is obvious that because of the nature
of the machinery involved, the work of the refiner engineer is highly
repetitive and requires little, if any, exercise of independent judgment
other than that normally exercised by a very skilled employee or crafts-
man operating a machine. Indeed, if something went wrong with the
automatic machinery involved which could cause a long or serious
break in the flow of the material from the beginning to the end of the
stockmaking process, the tour foreman, who is the superior of the re-
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
finer engineer on duty, would be called. Moreover, if any of the men
in the refinery area desire to take time off and leave their work stations
they must receive permission, not from the refiner engineer, but from
the tour foreman.
The Board has but recently held,3 in a somewhat analogous situation,
that employees who are charged with the responsibility of operating
large, complicated, and expensive modern automatic machinery used
in various processes in industry are not necessarily supervisors within
the meaning of the Act merely because they exercise a certain amount
of control over others who work with them in the operation of this
-complicated machinery. The control which they exercise and the
authority which they possess are derived from their working skill
and from their responsibility for the operation and control of the
complex machinery involved. It is not the type of control contem-
plated in the statutory definition of supervisor, nor is it the authority
responsibly to direct other employees which flows from management
'and tends to identify or associate a worker with management. Indeed,
by the very nature of the relationship between these highly skilled
operators and their assistants there is a very close community of in-
terests between them as coworkers and the amended Act reserved for
these highly skilled employees the right to be represented together
with their associates by a collective-bargaining agent in dealing with
their employers.
In' our opinion, therefore, the, relationship between the refiner en-
gineers, and the employees who work with them in the refinery area
is that of a skilled craftsman and his helpers. We therefore find that
the recommendatory powers that they possess are inherent in such
relationship and are not sufficient to constitute them supervisors within
the meaning of the Act 4
Accordingly, we find that the refiner engineers are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and we shall include this classification in
the unit found appropriate.
Machine tender: Like the refiner engineers, the machine tenders,
of whom there are four, are supervised by the tour foreman and are
responsible for the operation of a large, complicated, and extremely
automatic machine which converts the stock prepared by the refiner
engineer and his assistants into the finished paper product. Working
on the machine with the machine tender are five other employees sta-
tioned at various points along the machine and whom he directs to a
-certain extent. Also. like the refiner engineer, the machine tender
receives from 15 to 25 cents per hour in wages more than the other
:employees working with him on the machine.
s Southern Bleachery and Print Works, Inc , 115 NLRB 787
* Southern Bleachery and Print Works, Inc., supra.
UNITED STATES SMELTING, REFINING AND MINING COMPANY 661
It is not necessary here to discuss in detail the operation of the paper-
making machine which he operates. It is sufficient to state that the
entire machine can be stopped, started, slowed, or speeded up from
a control panel on the machine at which the machine tender spends
approximately 50 percent, or more, of his worktime. By hand and
verbal signals he directs operations as regards the work of the other
employees who assist at the machine. Thus, it is clear that the ma-
chine tender's duties are very similar to those of the refiner engineer
and that the authority he possesses and his direction of his less skilled
fellow employees are also very similar to those of the refiner engineer.
Therefore, we find that the machine tenders, like the refiner engineers,
are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall include
them in the production and maintenance unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
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 Employer's Galena
Park, Texas, paper mill, including machine tenders and refiner en-
gineers, but excluding all technical employees, professional employees,
guards, the lead mechanic, the lead electrician, the checker loading, the
checker unloading, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MuRDOCK and RoDGERS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company and
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL-
CIO,' Petitioner
United States Smelting , Refining and Mining Company and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers, Local No. 183, AFL-CIO, 2 Petitioner.
Cases. Nos. 19-RC-1810 and 19-RC-1813. August 17, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Howard E. Hilbun, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
1 Hereinafter referred to'as Operating Engineers.
2 Hereinafter referred to as Teamsters.
116 NLRB No. 93.