Mayfair Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 223 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

MAYFAIR INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED 223
We think if the Umon leaves us alone we can keep all of our present
employees whether they are 16 or 76, as long as they want to stay with us
We have given our employees steady employment
Personally, I think most of you would rather have work year round
All of you know the fine record our Company has for steady work
everyone is kept fully employed
In recent weeks not nearly so many people have been walking off the
job or leaving us shorthanded because they appreciate the steady work here
in the face of unemployment elsewhere
I promise you we will continue to make improvements as fast as we
can find the money to do them with This would include vacations, holiday
pay, pay increases, etc
Improvements you have gotten in the past have been for free and the
improvements in the future can be for free
As in the case of the Slogans on the placards and buttons, the above letters and
speech contain veiled and subtle threats of reprisal if the Union won the election
and implied promises of benefit if the Union lost It was part of the Respondent's
campaign to instill fear of loss of employment if the employees voted for the Umon
In my opinion, such conduct on the Respondent's part substantially and materially
interfered with the employees' free choice at the election, and I so find The import
of these slogans, letters, and speech must have been clear to the employees in view
of the numerous acts of unlawful conduct by Respondent's officers and supervisors
found herein While I find that the above conduct interfered with the election, I do
not find that the letters and speech were violative of the Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
W THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section `III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce.
and the free flow of commerce
V THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,`
District Union 431, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act
2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act
3 The aforesaid unf air labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication I
Mayfair Industries, Incorporated and Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union No. 21, Petitioner.
Case No 15-RC-2071 January 19, 1960
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 C. Dale Stout, hearing of-
126 NLRB No 35
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ficer. 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer. The Employer refused to stipulate at the
hearing that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act. As it appears that the Petitioner exists for the pur-
pose of bargaining with employers on behalf of its members concern-
ing terms and conditions of employment, we find that the Petitioner
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.'
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 the production and mainte-
nance employees at the Employers Lafayette, Louisiana, plant, but
would exclude leadmen and inspectors as supervisors. The Employer
' The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the constitution of
the Petitioner 's International Union prohibits the Petitioner from representing the
Employer ' s employees . We find no merit in this contention It is the Petitioner's will-
ingness, rather than its constitutional ability to represent these employees which is the
controlling factor F C Russell Company, 116 NLRB 1015, footnote 5. We also find
no merit in the Employer ' s motion to dismiss the petition on the alleged ground that
the Petitioner is affiliated with certain organizations which were not in compliance with
former Section 9(f), (g), and ( h) of the Act at the time the petition was filed The
record does not establish that these organizations are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act and thus subject to the filing requirements then in force.
After the hearing, on November 5, 1959, Shopmen ' s Local Union No. 619, International
Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called
Local 619 , filed a motion for intervention by telegram , asserting that it was not notified
of this proceeding until after the hearing herein and that it has an adequate showing of
interest among the Employer s production and maintenance employees , and requesting
that it be placed on the ballot in any election which may be directed herein The
Employer opposes the motion on the ground ( 1) that the telegram does not comply with
the Board 's Rules regarding bringing of notions . and (2) that Local 619 has not made
an adequate showing of interest in the unit , alleged to be appropriate by Local 619,
which is larger than that sought by the Petitioner In its opposition , the Employer also
requests that , before an election is directed herein, the record be reopened to allow it to
show that Local 619 is not a labor organization We find no merit in these contentions
of the Employer . As to compliance with our rules for printing of motions, we observe
that Local 619 selected the most expeditious method to intervene herein and that no party
has been prejudiced by noncompliance with the printing rules Under these circum-
stances, we waive technical compliance with such rules in this case As to showing of
interest , Local 619 has expressed a desire to participate in any election directed by the
Board. More specifically, it has requested a place on the ballot even in the event that the
Board finds appropriate the unit of production and maintenance employees sought by the
Petitioner We are administratively satisfied that Local 619 has made a timely and
sufficient showing of interest among the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees, and its motion to intervene is granted As to the request to reopen the record,
it is denied as the Board has recently determined that Local 619 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. II'oodwerd - Wight & Co, Ltd , Case No.
15-RC-2000, dated August 11, 1959 ( unpublished).
MAYFAIR INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED 225
agrees except that it would include these two categories, contending
that they are nonsupervisory.
The leadn en: The leadmen who are more experienced than their
fellow workers work in the production area, performing manual
labor and transmitting communications from foremen to employees:
on the assembly line. Like production workers, the leadmen are
hourly paid and punch timeclocks. They have no authority to hire,,
discharge, or effectively recommend changes in the employment status
of other workers. Contrary to the Petitioner, we find that the lead-
men are not supervisors, and we shall include them in the unit.
The inspectors: The inspectors, 10 in number, are the last employ-
ees on the production line. They make the final inspection of the
finished product under the direction of the chief inspector, an admitted
supervisor. Inspectors are hourly paid and receive the same employee
benefits as production workers. Although an inspector may reject
defective products, he has no authority to discipline other employees
or to direct them as to the manner of performance of their work. He
has no authority to hire, discharge, or effectively recommend such,
action. In an earlier case involving the Employer's predecessor 2
inspectors were included in the unit. We find that the inspectors are
not supervisors, and we shall, in accord with the Employer, include
them.
At the hearing, although no one contended otherwise, the Employer
adduced evidence which showed that certain employees were plant
clerical employees. The record discloses that these employees per-
form clerical duties in the plant or in the factory office. They work
with, or in proximity to, production and maintenance employees.
They are hourly paid and receive the same employee benefits as pro-
duction workers. Accordingly, we shall include these plant clericals,,
namely, the receiving clerk, the production scheduling clerk, the
material controls clerk, the time clerks, the inventory clerks, the
stockers, the expediters, and the utility man in the plantwide unit.
Truckdrivers were included in the overall unit previously found
appropriate. Since that time, their duties have not changed. No one
seeks to represent them separately. Accordingly, we shall include
them.
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the follow-
ing classifications of employees:
The shipping clerk: The Employer would exclude the shipping
clerk as a supervisor. This employee ordinarily packs and loads fin-
ished products. For about 2 hours each day, in the absence of super-
visors, he "directs" shipping department employees; however, the
nature and extent of such direction is not shown. The record is clear
2 Croft Louisiana, Inc, Case No 15-RC-1499, dated July 22, 1957 (unpublished)
554461-60-vol. 126-16
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he may not discharge other shipping department employees. The
shipping clerk was included in the unit previously found appropriate,
and it does not appear that his duties have changed since that time.
As the record does not show that the shipping clerk has any super-
visory authority, we shall include him in the unit.
The nurse: The record shows that the Employer employs a nurse
who administers first aid and otherwise performs the usual duties of
her profession. In conformity with our usual practice, we shall
exclude her front the unit 3 because of her diverse interests.
We find that the following employees at the Employer's Lafayette,
Louisiana, plant, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, including the receiving
clerk, the shipping clerk, the production scheduling clerk, the material
controls clerk, the time clerks, inventory clerks, stockers, expediters,
the utility man, truckdrivers, inspectors, and leadmen, but excluding
the chief inspector, the nurse, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 The Bailey Department Stores Co , 120 NLRB 1239, 1242
International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America , AFL-CIO, Local No. 1445, and Its Agent
John Haney and Roy Lumpkins and Fenix & Scisson, Inc.,
Party to the Contract . Case No. 9-CB-490. January 20, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 29, 1959, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond,
ents filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Members
Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
The Board 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
126 NLRB No. 34.