Wolverine World Wide, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1972

196 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wolverine World Wide , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 7-RC-10485
April 18, 1972
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
CERTIFICATION OF BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND KENNEDY
On May 13, 1971, the Regional Director for Region
7 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above matter. On June 10, 1971, an election by secret
ballot was conducted in the production and mainte-
nance unit found appropriate for collective-bargain-
ing purposes. The tally of ballots indicated that of the
332 ballots cast, 163 were for the 158 against the Peti-
tioner, and 11 ballots were challenged. The challenged
ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results
of the election. Objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election were filed by the Petitioner on
June 21, 1971.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, as amended, the Acting
Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision on
Objections and Challenges, in which he rejected the
Petitioner's objections as they were untimely filed
and found that the resolution of 10 of the 11 chal-
lenges ' required a hearing. Pursuant to notice, a hear-
ing on said challenges was held on various dates in
July 1971 before Hearing Officer Charles F. Morris.
On August 30, 1971, the Hearing Officer issued his
report recommending that challenges to eight ballots
be sustained and that the remaining two challenges be
overruled. On September 10, 1971, the Employer filed
timely excpetions with respect to seven of the eight
challenges which were sustained and on October 4,
the Petitioner filed an opposition thereto. On October
15, 1971, the Acting Regional Director issued a Sup-
plemental Decision on Challenged Ballots and Certi-
fication of Representative, in which he ruled on the
merits of seven of the challenges , sustaining six in
accord with the Hearing Officer and overruling one,
contrary to the Hearing Officer and in accord with the
Employer's position. With respect to the eighth chal-
lenge, involving Conrad, the Hearing Officer's rec-
ommendation that it be sustained was adopted pro
forma as the Employer had filed no exception thereto.
As 7 of the 11 challenges had been sustained, the
Acting Regional Director concluded that the 4 re-
' The one challenge excluded from the hearing involved an alleged discn-
minatee which was being litigated in pending unfair labor practice Case
7-CA-8068.
maining challenged ballots could not affect the ulti-
mate results of the election, even if all were cast
against the Petitioner? Accordingly, the Petitioner
was certified as exclusive bargaining representative of
employees in the unit.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Reg-
ulations, the Employer filed a timely Request for Re-
view of the Acting Regional Director's Supplemental
Decision, contending that the sustaining of six chal-
lenges (two all around men, Wirth and McIntyre, and
four floor girls, Garbow, Peterson, Mason, and Smith)
was erroneous. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an
opposition thereto.
The Board by telegraphic order dated December 6,
1971, granted the Employer's Request for Review.
The Petitioner thereafter filed a Brief Upon Review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having duly considered the entire record in this
proceeding, including the transcript, the Request for
Review, and briefs, the Board adopts the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision with the following
additions.
We are persuaded that the record establishes, as the
Acting Regional Director found, that the two "all
around" men and the four "floor girls" in dispute are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.'
Thus, it appears that all six of the above-mentioned
individuals are held out as supervisors to employees
by the respective department foremen and the em-
ployees are instructed to do as they are told by these
individuals. They also substitute for their respective
foremen and others. They assign work and transfer
employees from one job to another, from machine to
machine based on production needs and their knowl-
edge of the employees' capability to perform the
work .4 They tell employees when to shut down their
2 A revised tally would show 163 votes for, and 158 against, the Petitioner
and 4 challenged ballots , of which I remains unresolved and 3 remain uno-
pened
3 In support of its position that these individuals have not been given any
supervisory authority by management, the Employer notes that an all around
man and a floor girl voted in this election without challenge and none of the
all around men at its Rockford , Michigan , plant A, were challenged at the
election in Case 7-RC-10252. However , this comparison is not meaningful
as it is well settled that supervisory status is not based on a title or lack thereof
but rather depends upon whether a given individual in fact possesses supervi-
sory duties. This point is here illustrated in the apparent application of the
plant manager 's policy of urging his subordinates to delegate authority. Thus,
the all around man who voted without challenge testified to his almost
complete lack of authority in comparison to the authority posssessed by one
of the all around men in dispute.
4 We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that these individuals do
not have power to transfer employees from one job to another and that in
any event such transfers are not made over the employees' objection. A
number of employees testified as to the nature and frequency of assignments
and reassignments between jobs and machines and occasionally to other
departments at the direction of these individuals in dispute . There is also
196 NLRB No. 35
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. 411
machines and if there is no work for them to do, they
excuse the employees to leave early; if on the other
hand, the production requirements have not been
met, they instruct employees to continue working be-
yond the normal workday. They give employees per-
mission to leave work early;I do not work against any
production standard;6 and perform little, if any, pro-
duction work. They take defective work back to the
operator responsible and with respect to the all
around men, they have taken part in formal repri-
mands of employees due to defective work which in
testimony that when an objection was raised , the foreman would direct the
employee to do as the all around man or floor girl had told him , and af-
terwards he could talk with him about the assignment.
5 We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that these individuals do
not have authority to grant employees permission to leave early . The employ-
ee handbook states that time off "must be arranged in advance with the
employee 's immediate supervisor." (Emphasis supplied .) The record reflects
numerous instances of employees requesting and obtaining permission from
the individuals in dispute to take time off. The record fails to disclose that
any employee was ever disciplined for not obtaining such permission from
hither authority.
The Employer argues that there are other unit employees who do not
work against a production standard . The record discloses that hourly rated
employees are described as "standard " or "non-standard" employees but
does not distinguish or explain the types of employees in either category.
However , all of the production department employees who testified stated
that they had to meet production standards whereas the disputed individuals
did not.
one case resulted in a 3-day suspension of the employ-
ee.
The floor girls also do considerable training of new
employees and teaching of new work to old employ-
ees. They have also been recipients of Christmas gifts
purchased with money collected by employees in their
respective departments for presentation to their su-
pervisors.
Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that the
Petitioner has received a majority of the valid ballots
case, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining
representative for the employees in the appropriate
unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said labor or-
ganization is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the unit found appropriate herein for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment.