Kent Plastics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 519 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION 519
As it thus appears that the unit sought omits a substantial number of
the Employer's maintenance craftsmen, we find it is inappropriate
for collective bargaining.9 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
9 Cf. Stanolied Oil and Gas Research Section, 81 NLRB 1089. See also Marshall Field
-and Co., 97 NLRB 5.
KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION 1 and UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTIIRAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO),
PETITIONER... Case No. 35-RC-786. November 21, 1952
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 John W. Hines, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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, Murdock, and Styles].
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
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 Employer and the Petitioner substantially agree that a unit
of production and maintenance employees, including the watchmen-
janitors and excluding office and clerical employees, is appropriate.
They disagree concerning approximately 25 group leaders; the Peti-
tioner claims that these employees are supervisors. The Employer
opposes their exclusion from the unit on the ground that they have no
supervisory authority.
For the 300 employees presently employed, there are, excluding the
group leaders, about 17 supervisors and foremen, a ratio of 1 super-
visor to 17 or 18 employees. The group leaders, usually longer em-
' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
101 NLRB No. 107.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployed and more skilled than the average rank-and-file employee, are
each in charge of a production line of from 20 to 30 employees. They
are expected to see that work is produced on schedule, to insure that
the necessary production materials are at hand, to instruct the new
employees in their duties, and to work on the production line when
necessary to relieve line employees or to help out when the line falls
behind in production. The group leaders are paid in much the same
manner as rank-and-file employees; they receive 10 cents an hour
more for hourly rated work and receive an incentive pay increment a
greater proportion of the time than the other employees. While there
was testimony at the hearing that group leaders attended social gath-
erings and plant meetings together with supervisors, the evidence
establishes that these meetings and gatherings were not restricted to
supervisors, but were attended by rank-and-file employees. More-
over, the meetings were not primarily concerned with supervisory
functions or problems.
It is clear that the group leaders do not ordinarily have the authority
effectively to recommend the promotion, transfer, or discharge of em-
ployees on their production lines. There was some testimony that at
the time of general work-force reductions the group leaders are con-
sulted about the employees on their lines, but the testimony does not
show what weight is given their recommendations. The record does
indicate that the supervisors and foremen are well acquainted with
the performance of employees under their supervision and that they,
and not the group leaders, make the effective recommendations for
discharge without necessarily relying upon recommendations made by
the group leaders. In view of these facts and the record as a whole,
we find that the group leaders are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act, and we shall include them in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.2
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's manufacturing plant at Evansville, In-
diana, including group leaders, watchmen-janitors,3 and production
inspectors, but excluding office and clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The determination of representatives :
The Employer has released, during the year 1952, about 100 em-
ployees. The parties agree that, of these hundred employees, about
2 Pent -Electric Company, Inc., 95 NLRB 1186.
8 The parties agree that the watchmen -janitors spend more than 50 percent of their time
in the performance of maintenance duties. We shall therefore include them in the unit.
Wiley Mfg. Inc., 92 NLRB 40.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION - 521
30 laid off in early September 1952 have been released only temporarily
and that they have a reasonable expectation of reemployment. We
shall permit the employees temporarily laid off in September 1952
to vote.
The parties disagree concerning the approximately 70 employees
laid off in May or June 1952. The Employer asserts that it intends
to reinstate, as production requirements justify, all of these old em-
ployees before engaging new employees. The Petitioner contends
that the Employer follows a policy of laying off the least efficient em-
ployees and of not recalling some of those laid off for an indefinite
period. Several employees testified to this effect. In view of the in-
conclusive nature of the evidence, we are unable to make a definitive
determination at this time of the employment status of these indi-
viduals. We shall allow the employees released in May or June of
1952 to vote subject to challenge in the election hereinafter ordered.
The challenged ballots shall not be counted unless they affect the re-
sults of the election, in which event a further investigation concerning
the employment status of the employees casting the challenged ballots
will be made.4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
• Cf. Guggenheim Packing Company, 94 NLRB 777.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION , AC SPARKPLUG DIvIsION, MILWAUKEE
PLANT and LOCAL 44, INTERNATIONAL GIIARDs UNION OF AMERICA,
INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-2926. November 21,
1952
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 Joseph Cohen,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
101 NLRB No. 111.