Metal Treating Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with INTERNATIONAL MAILERS
UNION AND INTERNATIONAL MAILERS UNION, LOCAL 141, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all the employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit :
All employees in the mail room at the Times Publishing Company plant,
Wichita Falls, Texas, excluding all supervisory employees and all other,
employees.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ----------------------------- By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
PLASTIC MANUFACTURERES AND DESIGNERS CORP., D/B/A METAL TREAT-
ING Co.' and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 35-RC-750. August 15,1952
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 William G. Wilkerson,
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, an Indiana corporation, is engaged in the heat
treating of metals and metal parts. The Employer commenced busi-
ness on July 1, 1951, and during the succeeding 10-month period for,
which figures were available at the time of the hearing, its purchases
amounted to $21,000, of which about 10 percent was obtained directly
and 50 percent indirectly from outside the State. During the same
period, the Employer's sales were about $67,450, of which $48,866
represented sales to companies that were engaged in producing or
handling goods destined for shipment outside the State, or performing
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the bearing.
100 NLRB No. 105.
PLASTIC MANUFACTURERS AND DESIGNERS CORP. 657
services outside the State in the value of $25,000 or more per annum .2
The Employer estimated at the hearing that for the months of May
and June 1952, sales to firms of this type would total between $1,000
and $1,500.
The Board has determined that it will assert jurisdiction over those
enterprises which ,affect commerce by virtue of the fact that they
furnish goods or services necessary to the operations of other employers
engaged in commerce, without regard to other factors, where such
goods or services are valued at $50,000 per annum or more, and are
sold to enterprises engaged in producing or handling goods destined
for out-of-State shipment, or performing services outside the State,
in the value of $25,000 per annum or more.3 Accordingly, as these
requirements are met in the instant case,4 we find that the Employer's
operations affect commerce and that it would effectuate the purposes
of that Act to assume jurisdiction in this case.s
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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) ant Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree that a production and maintenance unit, ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
the admin. istrative assistant, and the general manager, is appropriate.
Howe: er, there is disagreement as to the superintendent and the assist-
ant s;ir c'rintendent whom the Employer would exclude as super-
visors and the Petitioner would include as employees.
The superintendent directs the Employer's first shift, which consists
of a truck driver and a laborer. In additio73, he gives instruction to
the two laborers on the second shift. The one laborer on the third
shift is directed by the assistant superintendent. Both the superin-
tendent and assistant superintendent work along with the laborers to
whom they give technical avice.
Although the Employer contends that the superintendent and the
assistant superintendent have the power to make effective recommen-
2 Although it was stipulated that about $13,000 of the Employer 's remaining business
was with firms outside this category , another $5 ,000 of sales was made to companies about
which the record contains no commerce information.
3 Walter G.oBrix, Inc, 96 NLRB 519 ; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
4 As the Employer 's estimate for the 2 months , May and June 1952, was given as between
$1,000 and $1 ,500, we are adding the amount of $1,250 to $48 , 866, the total for the pre-
ceding 10 months. Moreover , projection of the sales figures for the first 10 months, which
are indicative of the Employer 's minimum potential for the balance of the year, yields an
annual total of about $58 , 640. See Walter G. Brix, Inc., supra.
B The Employer contends , however, that two-thirds of its sales to customers , who them-
selves annually do $25,000 or more business outside of the State , are of a nonrecurring
nature, and that its sales for the forthcoming year will fall below the $50,000 minimum
requirement for the assertion of jurisdiction . As the Employer is a new enterprise with-
out a fixed and long-established pattern of business , its contention is based on speculation
and we therefore base our decision herein upon the activity of the Employer for the only
period for which data nppear in the record . Stoll Lumber Company, 96 NLRB 682.
I
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dations with regard to the status of employees, the record discloses
that the general manager, who is in charge of the plant, interviews
recommended applicants and makes decisions on the basis of his
observations. It appears also that the general manager is sufficiently
familiar with the work of the small number of employees to make
personnel changes on the basis of such knowledge., Such suggestions
as are made by the superintendent and the assistant superintendent
are therefore not effective recommendations within the meaning of
the Act., The record also indicates that the assignment of work by
the superintendent and the assistant superintendent is routine in
nature. Their direction of the other employees is of the limited type
usually exercised by experienced employees over those less skilled.8
Moreover, a finding that they as well as the general manager and the
administrative assistant are supervisors would result in a ratio of four
supervisors to five employees, a very high supervisory ratio.9 Ac-
cordingly, we find that the superintendent and assistant superintend-
ent are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act10 and we shall
include them in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance ernpkqees at the
Employer's plant in Indianapolis, Indiana, including the superintend-
ent and assistant superintendent, but excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, administrative assistant,
general manager, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication iii this
volume.]
-At least 30 percent of the general manager's time is spent In the plant. And In his
absence the administrative assistant conveys his instructions or those of the Employer's
president to the superinterdent or "the man in charge."
Emil Denemark, Inc., 97 NLRB 1107.
Potash Corporation of America, 97 NLRB 511 ; Geo. Knight h Co., 93 NLRB 1193.
8 See Potash Corporation of America, supra; and Geo. Knight el Co., supra, in which an
Inordinately high supervisory ratio was held to be a factor In determining whether or not
supervisory authority exists.
11 Titles as such cannot safely be used as a guide in uetermining supervisory status.
+;lvewood's, 92 NLRB 1114.
MICHIGAN BAKERIES, INC., and ROBERT D. McPIIEE, PETITIONER and
GENERAL TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL No. 406, INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, `VAREIIOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
, F AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. 7-RD-116. August 15, 195
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing in this case
was held before Jerome H. Brooks, hearing officer. The hearing
The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
190 NLRB No. 106.