Opelika Foundry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 897 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

OPELIKA FOUNDRY 897
Opelika Foundry and International Molders &
Allied Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA-
21336 and 10-CA-21405
30 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 19 May 1986 Administrative Law Judge Wil-
liam N . Cates issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Respondent filed an opposition brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative
law judge is adopted and the complaint is dis-
missed.
joined or engaged in activities on behalf of the Union;
the Company notified the Union in writing on 24 Octo-
ber that William Pinney (Pinney) was not acceptable to
it as a member of the grievance committee and has, in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, failed and refused
to meet with any grievance committee thereafter which
included Pinney ; and the Company, about 11 December,
discharged and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate
Pinney because of his membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union and because he engaged in concerted
activities with other employees for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
The Company, in its answer dated 18 February 1986, ad-
mitted various allegations of the complaint, but denied
the commission of any of the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate
and introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , to argue orally , and to file briefs.
Briefs, which have been carefully considered were filed
on behalf of the General Counsel and the Company. The
Company timely filed a reply brief.
On the entire record of the case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnessesand their demeanor , I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility
findings The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge 's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard
Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cit.
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing the findings.
Virginia L. Jordan, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jacob Walker Jr., Esq. (Walker, Hiel, Adams, Umbach,
Herndon, & Dean), of Opelika, Alabama, for the Re-
spondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. The
hearing in this case held on 25 and 26 February 19861 is
based on unfair labor practice charges filed by Interna-
tional Molders & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO (Union) on
13 November in Case 10-CA-21336 and on 18 Decem-
ber in Case 10-CA-21405 and an order consolidating
cases, amended consolidated complaint, and notice of
hearing (complaint) issued on 6 February 1986 on behalf
of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board (Board) by the Regional Director for Region 10,
alleging that . Opelika Foundry (Company) has engaged
in unfair labor ' practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
More specifically the complaint alleges: about 12 No-
vember the Company , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, threatened its employees with discharge if they
1 All dates hereinafter are 1985 unless otherwise indicated.
1. JURISDICTION
The Company is an Alabama corporation with an
office and place of business located at Opelika, Alabama,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of cast iron prod-
ucts . During the calendar year preceding issuance of the
complaint herein , a representative period, the Company,
in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold
and shipped from its Opelika, Alabama facility goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of Alabama . The parties admit and I
find the Company is, and has been at all times material,
an employer engaged in commerce and in a business af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The parties admit and I find the Union is, and at all
times material has been , a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Central Issue
The central issue is whether Pinney , at all material
times, was a supervisor within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act.
For the reasons hereinafter discussed , I find Pinney, at
all material times, was a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act . Such a finding is dispositive of the other
lesser inextricably intertwined issues.
281 NLRB No. 121
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Background
The Company is the patentee and original manufactur-
er of the standard Buffalo Style cast iron and plastic
screw and sliding type curb, valve, and roadway boxes.
The process for manufacturing these boxes is somewhat
complex. However, in lay terms, it essentially involves
constructing a master pattern from hard wood and then
utilizing that master pattern to make an aluminum pro-
duction pattern. The Company utilizes wood and plaster
of paris to create a pattern to make an aluminum produc-
tion core box. Shell cores are taken from core boxes and
placed in molds to form the inside of the castings utilized
by the Company. The production and core box patterns
are then utilized on the production lines at the foundry
to produce the Company's products for sale.
The Company has been unionized at least since 7 June
1973 when the Board certified the Union as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Company's produc-
tion and maintenance employees. The Company and
Union have been parties to successive collective-bargain-
ing agreements, the most recent of which is effective
from 1 February 1984 to 31 January 1987.
The current collective-bargaining agreement at article
11 provides for a grievance procedure.2 The collective-
bargaining agreement calls for the Company to recognize
and deal with three union-designated stewards. The
Union is required to provide the Company, in writing, a
list of its designated stewards. The three stewards the
Company is required to work with are referred to collec-
tively as the union committee. On 22 October Pinney,
Eddie Bryant, and Lewis Harris were elected as the
Union's committeemen. On 23 October Union Corre-
sponding Secretary W. F. Cunningham wrote Company
General Manager D. E. Shaw the following letter:
Please be informed that on October 22, 1985,
William Penny [sic] was elected as Chairman of the
Committeemen. Eddie Bryant and Lewis Harris was
[sic] elected as Committeemen [Jt. Exh. 2].
On 23 October, Pinney told Plant Manager William T.
Burke (W. Burke) that he had been selected as one of the
Union's committeemen. W. Burke told Pinney, "there
was just one problem" he could not be on the committee
because he was a "supervisor."
On 24 October Shaw replied in writing to Cun-
ningham as follows:
We have your letter of October 23 advising us of
the new committeemen at Opelika Foundry.
The company is very pleased to accept the elec-
tion of Mr. Bryant and Mr. Harris as committee-
men, however, we have a long standing company
rule that no one in the supervisory position may
hold office in the local union . Mr. Pinney is in
charge of our pattern department and therefore not
acceptable to the company as a member of the com-
mittee [Jt. Exh. 3].3
2 The agreement defines a grievance as any dispute between the Union
and Company or between the Company and any employee(s).
8 Copies of the letter were sent to Pinney, Bryant, Hams, and others
On 12 November Pinney, Bryant, and Harris ap-
proached Plant Manager W. Burke in the plant area.
Bryant told W. Burke they wanted to talk to him about a
grievance related to a temporary molder position.4 W.
Burke explained the position was temporary and stated
he had already discussed the matter with Harris. W.
Burke told Pinney to return to work, that what was
being discussed did not involve him because he was not
a committeeman. Pinney told W. Burke he certainly was
a committeeman. W. Burke responded, "Billy, I can't
meet with you, and I won't meet with you." Pinney
stated, "Well, I was elected chairman of the committee
unanimously." W. Burke replied, "Billy, if you don't
leave this alone we're going to get in trouble." Pinney
responded: "Well, why don't you just fire me? Fire me
now. Fire me now."a
The Company processed grievances before the 12 No-
vember incident involving Pinney and it has continued to
process grievances with other members of the Union's
committee thereafter.
On the next day after the 12 November incident in-
volving Pinney, the Union filed the first of the two
charges giving rise to the complaint herein.6 On 11 De-
cember the Company discharged, and has at all times
thereafter, refused to reemploy Pinney. On 18 December,
the Union filed the second of the two charges giving rise
to the complaint herein.'
C. Statutory Provisions, Governing Principles, and
Operative Facts Regarding Pinney's Supervisory Status
The statutory provisions and governing principles per-
taining to whether an individual is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act are well known and established.
However, reference to the statute and a brief restatement
of some of the governing principles is appropriate prior
to examining the specific facts applicable to Pinney's
status.
1. Statutory provisions
First, it is clear that an individual's status as a supervi-
sor is not determined by his/her title or job classification,
4 Harris, who was a molder helper, wanted to know why the most
senior person eligible for the position in question had not been selected
5 W. Burke impressed me as a truthful witness and, accordingly, I
credit his account, set forth above, of the 12 November meeting Pinney's
account of the meeting does not differ significantly from W Burke's
except Pinney contends Burke told him, "If you don't leave the Union
alone you're gonna be gone ." With respect to any credibility resolutions
that involved Pinney, I have not relied on his testimony at any place
where it conflicted with the testimony of other witnesses Although not
discernable from the record, Pinney, while testifying, displayed an under-
lying appearance of being angry over the events related to him and as
such I am persuaded he allowed his anger to cloud and alter his recall of
certain events I do not find the testimony of Bryant, the only other
person present at the 12 November meeting who testified, to either add
to or detract from W Burke's or Pinney's testimony because he stated he
coud not be sure what was said between W. Burke and Pinney
6 The first charge, Case 10-CA-21336 filed 13 November, alleges the
Company violated Sec 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to discuss collec-
tive-bargaining matters with the Union's designated committee chairman
9 The second charge, Case 10-CA-21405, speaks in terms of, and the
complaint alleges, an 8(a)(l ) and (3) violation in the discharge of Pinney
I note, however, that par 1(h) of the second (as well as the first) charge
only refers to 8(a)(l) and (5) allegations.
OPELIKA FOUNDRY
but rather is determined from the individual's functions
and authority. Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervi-
sor as:
The term "supervisor" means any individual having
authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge,
assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or re-
sponsibly to direct them, or to adjust their griev-
ances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in
connection with the foregoing the exercise of such
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical
nature, but requires the use of independent judg-
ment.
2. Governing principles
The statutory indicia outlined above in Section 2(11)
of the Act are in the disjunctive and only one need exist
to confer supervisory status on an individual. Albany
Medical Center Hospital, 273 NLRB 485, 486 (1984). See
also Olympia Plastics Corp., 266 NLRB 519 at 530 (1983).
The Board, in Hydro Conduit Corp., 254 NLRB 433
(1981), affirmed Administrative Law Judge William J.
Pannier III's account of certain precedent related to the
supervisory status of an individual. Judge Pannier noted
that possession , alone, of one of the statutory indicia was
not totally sufficient to confer supervisory status on an in-
dividual. He stated (at 437):
Rather, supervisory status exists only if the power is
exercised with independent judgment on behalf of
management , and not in a routine or clerical
manner ". . . the statute expressly insists that a su-
pervisor (1) have authority (2) to use independent
judgment (3) in performing such supervisory func-
tions (4) in the interest of management. These latter
requirements are conjunctive." NLRB Y. Security
Guard Service, Inc., 384 F.2d 143, 147-148 (5th Cir.
1967). Moreover, "the burden is on the party alleg-
ing supervisory status to prove that it, in fact,
exists. . .." Commercial Movers, Inc., 240 NLRB
288, 290 (1979). Further, in making determinations
regarding supervisory status, "the Board has a duty
to employees to be alert not to construe supervisory
status too broadly because the employee who is
deemed a supervisor is denied employee rights
which the Act is intended to protect." Westinghouse
Electric Corporation v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 1151, 1158
(7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 831.
Individuals with statutory supervisory authority do not
lose their status simply because they infrequently exer-
cise their authority. Also, supervision of one employee is
sufficient if the statutory indicia of supervisory status are
met. Jack Holland & Son, 237 NLRB 263 at 265 (1978).
3. Operative facts
The facts of the instant case must be examined with
careful attention given to whether Pinney's "authority"
or "superior status" was as a result of his craft skills or
whether it flowed from managerial power.
899
In 1978 the Company (specifically Shaw and W.
Burke) decided to construct its own master patterns.
Prior to 1978 all master patterns utilized by the Compa-
ny were obtained from outside sources. Prior to 1978 the
Company utilized a pattern molder8 but did not have a
patternmaker. Pinney was already employed, the first
time,9 when the Company decided to establish a pattern-
maker position and department . Pinney was initially se-
lected as the patternmaker because of his woodworking
experience. As the original patternmaker in the pattern
shop, he was charged
with the responsibility of making workable, satisfac-
tory patterns for the foundry, starting with the
wood[en] [master patterns] and, when necessary, the
plaster recast, the aluminum production patterns,
the machining of the aluminum production patterns,
and the replacement and repair of those patterns,
and core boxes . . . encompass[ing] the whole ball
of wax, from obtaining the materials . . . [to] the
proper amount of tools [and] the proper mold[s] for
pouring.10
The pattern shop is located in the same building with
the Company's offices. General Manager Shaw's office is
on one end of the office building, with a clerical area
and conference room in the middle and the pattern shop
on the other end of the same building . The Foundry, or
main plant, is across the way from the Company's office
building. The pattern molding area is located in the
Foundry. Pinney's primary location was in the pattern
shop whereas the pattern molder and his helpers are lo-
cated in the foundry area where the pattern casting is
performed.
In 1980 Plant Manager W. Burke's son Randy Burke
(R. Burke) was made a pattern molder helper to assist
then pattern molder Mitchell. At some point during the
last 3 years of Pinney's employment, Robert Parris,
Robert Hammock," and William Dudley, as well as R.
Burke, worked in the pattern shop with Pinney. After
Mitchell left his employment with the Company in the
pattern molding area, Sam Moffett12 was brought in as a
pattern molding helper to assist R. Burke who was desig-
nated the pattern molder. As some point, Willie Pulliam
was transferred into the pattern molding area as a pattern
molding helper.13 Not all the above-mentioned employ-
9 It appears the original pattern molder was Billy Mitchell.
9 The parties stipulated that Pinney was originally hired on 23 May
1977 and quit on 29 September 1978. He was rehired 15 January 1979
and quit on 28 February 1980. He was rehired 16 October 1980 and quit
22 October 1982 He was rehired 13 December 1982 and discharged 11
December 1985
10 Pinney described his patternmaking duties as drawing the blueprints
to make the patterns; constructing the wooden master patterns, including
remounting and gating them , working on the automatic molding ma-
chines, and, asertaining why scrap was high and determining what could
be done about it.
i 1 At places in the transcript Hammock's name is spelled Hammil
12 At places in the transcript Moffett 's name is spelled Moffat
is It appears that at some relevant point in time one other employee,
Steve Weathers, who worked in another area of the plant , was trans-
ferred into the pattern molding area.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees were employed by the Company at the same time. It
appears the patternmaking and pattern molding areas ex-
perienced employee turnover during material times
herein. 14
Pinney testified , on direct examination, that while em-
ployed he had no authority to hire or fire anyone nor did
he have the authority to direct the work of others'5 or
to promote , transfer, lay off, recall , or reward employ-
ees. Pinney likewise stated that while employed he had
no authority to grant employees time off or to reprimand
them . Pinney said he had recommended that the Compa-
ny hire certain employees and stated he had interviewed
three employees before they were hired .' 6 He stated he
never had any other part in the Company's hiring proc-
ess other than to interview the three individuals who
were thereafter hired by the Company . Pinney stated he
had never recommended that the Company fire, disci-
pline , promote, transfer, lay off, recall , reward, grant
time off to , or reprimand any employees . Pinney stated
that during his time as a patternmaker , he did not deal
with any employees on any grievances.' 7
Although Pinney had no authority regarding several
of the statutory indicia of supervisory status, the evi-
dence establishes his role in supervision was not nearly
as minimal as he attempted to have it appear.
Of those that worked in the pattern shop with him,
Pinney interviewed Parris, Hammock , and Dudley. Plant
Manager W . Burke testified he interviewed Parris and
then sent him to Pinney for an interview . Pinney testified
he interviewed Parris for approximately 20 minutes in
July 1984 . In the interview they discussed , among other
things, Parris' prior machine operating experience. After
Pinney interviewed him Parris was also interviewed by
General Manager Shaw . After the interviews, Plant
Manager W. Burke asked Pinney if he thought Parris
could be of help in the pattern shop. Pinney told him he
thought Parris would work out and be of help.'s Plant
Manager W. Burke and General Manager Shaw both
stated they would not have hired Parris without Pinney's
approval.' a
The Company began to look for a replacement for
Parris after he quit his employment . 20 I credit Plant
14 It is, however, undisputed that the maximum number of employees
that Pinney would have had working for him at any given time in both
the pattern making and pattern molding areas were three'plus himself.
Pinney's functions and responsibilities related to the patternmaking and
pattern molding areas will be fully discussed hereinafter in this decision.
16 Pinney qualified his answer to say that he would "explain [to em-
ployees] how to do [their work] and what to do."
16 Pinney contended he never made a recommendation with respect to
one of the three employees he interviewed.
17 Pinney acknowledged that pattern molding employee Moffett came
to him in September about a work -related problem and he sent him to the
Union's committeemen . Pinney also stated that employee Dudley came to
hm in September about a safety -related (steel-toed shoes) problem.
Pinney stated he did nothing on that problem and that Dudley went to
the Union's committeemen and to General Manager Shaw.
19 Pinney stated the Company did not hire anyone from the outside
without his talking to them first.
19 General Manager Shaw testified , "if Mr. Pinney didn't want [Parris]
we knew dam well he wouldn 't work out."
20 According to Pinney , Parris told him he quit his employment with
the Company because he could not get along with Pinney.
Manager W . Burke 's testimony that Hammock was trans-
ferred to the pattern shop to replace Parris at Pinney's
request.2 1 Pinney testified Hammock had previously
been employed by the Company and stated he inter-
viewed Hammock for employment in the pattern shop in
November 1984 . Pinney testified the interview took ap-
proximately 20-30 minutes and at the end of it he recom-
mended to Plant Manager W . Burke that he hire Ham-
mock. Pinney testified Hammock was then hired for the
pattern shop . Pinney also testified Superintendent Ray-
mond Hampton told him Hammock was "a good
worker" and suggested Pinney recommend Hammock
for the pattern shop job . Although Pinney 's account of
Hammock's employment in the pattern shop differs
somewhat from Plant Manager W. Burke 's, and although
I credit Burke 's account , Pinney's version , even if cred-
ited , would compel the same result, namely, that Pinney
made effective recommendations regarding whether indi-
viduals were hired for (or transferred into) the pattern
shop.
General Manager Shaw testified Hammock left the
Company for employment elsewhere and when he did
the Company turned to a local vocational training school
for possible referrals for employment. Dudley was re-
ferred to the Company by a vocational school. Shaw
interviewed Dudley and then sent him to Plant Manager
W. Burke to be interviewed . General Manager Shaw
told Burke that if "he and Mr. Pinney thought [Dudley]
could be of some help [he] had no objections to trying
him."82 Plant Manager Burke testified that in consider-
ing Dudley for employment he specifically asked Pinney
if he thought Dudley had the ability and willingness to
become a patternmaker and if he thought Dudley had
the necessary qualifications to be brought into the pat-
tern shop . W. Burke testified Pinney told him that he
thought Dudley was qualified. W. Burke testified the
Company then hired Dudley.23
Considering all the above, it is clear Pinney had con-
trolling influence on management regarding whether to
hire potential employees for the patternmaking shop. It is
apparent no one was hired for the patternmaking shop
during Pinney's last term of employment without his
interviewing them and giving his approval for their em-
ployment . By being allowed veto or rejection power
21 It appears General Manager Shaw was not involved in Hammock's
employment in the pattern shop inasmuch as he stated he did not even
know that Hammock was transferred from the foundry to the pattern
shop or that he was even on the Company's premises until he observed
him in the pattern shop . Shaw , however, acknowledged Hammock was a
"retread" who had previously worked for the Company.
22 General Manager Shaw testified he assumed Plant Manager W.
Burke understood that if Pinney did not think Dudley would make a
good employee that he was not to be hired.
23 Pinney acknowledged he interviewed Dudley in June for approxi-
mately 20-30 minutes about his work experience and school training.
Pinney stated in his direct testimony that Plant Manager W. Burke asked
him about Dudley and he asserted he told Burke he was not recommend-
ing anyone anymore because no one ever stayed very long in the pattern
shop. On cross -examination, Pinney acknowledged that W. Burke asked
him whether he thought Dudley could do patternmaking work and he
testified he told W . Burke he believed Dudley could . Dudley was there-
after hired . Furthermore , Pinney acknowledged, on cross -examination,
that he expressed his views on all three potential patternmaking employ-
ees (Parris , Hammock , and Dudley) after he interviewed them.
OPELIKA FOUNDRY 901
over the employment of anyone in the patternmaking
shop, Pinney exercised an effective role in hiring with
the source of his power flowing from management.
Simply stated, Pinney had the power to make effective
recommendations with respect to hiring employees and
he exercised that power on more than one occasion.
Having and exercising such authority is one of the indi-
cia of supervisory status . Atlantic Foundry & Pattern
Corp., 192 NLRB 745 at 750 (1971). The above evidence
is sufficient, without more, to establish that Pinney was a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act even though he spent a significant amount of his
time making wooden master molds for the Company.
A look at the authority Pinney exercised over employ-
ees in the woodworking area of the pattern shop and the
molding area in the main foundry casts further light on
his supervisory status.
General Manager Shaw has at least since December
1984, prepared weekly production schedules based on
the Company's sales reports . Shaw stated the Company
makes some 525 patterns on approximately 7 different
molding stations and as a result someone has to decide
what the Company would produce from week to week.
Shaw stated the weekly production schedules that he
produces are then distributed to various supervisory and
management personnel for their use in manufacturing
each week's required production. 24 Plant Manager W.
Burke and Pinney are the first 2 of approximately 10 in-
dividuals listed on the weekly production schedules to
receive copies of it.25 Pinney stated he decided what
jobs were run first, second , third, etc. in the pattern
shop . 26 He stated he was responsible for seeing that the
work that went out of the pattern shop was correct.
Pinney stated if a patternmaking helper did not do
his/her job on a particular pattern correctly27 he would
require the patternmaking helper to go back and make
any necessary corrections so that the pattern would be
correct when it left the pattern shop.28
Foundry Superintendent Hampton testified Pinney di-
rected the work of the three employees in his areas of
responsibility.29
24 It appears distribution of the production schedules is limited to su-
pervisory personnel with a copy given to the person who keeps the Com-
pany's production records, namely, A. Pennington.
25 Pinney claimed he received the production schedules because he
had to change patterns based on the weekly schedules. However, he ac-
knowledged that all who received the weekly production schedules were
supervisors except himself.
26 Pattern shop employee Dudley testified Pinney interpreted the
weekly production schedules and decided what work would be per-
formed and in what order. Dudley testified he never started any job
without first finding out from Pinney what was to be done and in what
order. Foundry Superintendent Hampton stated that when new patterns
were made, Pinney told the patternmaking helpers what needed to be
done and worked with them in constructing the required patterns.
27 Dudley testified Pinney would explain to him what he had done
wrong when he made a mistake. He also stated Plant Manager W Burke
told him that his most direct supervisor was Pinney.
28 Foundry Superintendent Hampton testified Pinney had the final say
on whether patterns were properly made and whether they were in
proper working order.
29 As is noted elsewhere in this decision, the maximum number of em-
ployees that Pinney was responsible for at any given time did not exceed
three. The three generally were a patternmaking helper in the pattern
shop and the pattern molder and pattern molder helper in the foundry
area.
Maintenance Superintendent Terry Ware testified
Pinney gave the employees in the pattern molding area
their work assignments and saw to it that their work was
correctly done . R. Burke testified that when he worked
in the pattern molding department he received his work
assignments from Pinney and stated Pinney inspected the
work he did to see that it was done correctly. R. Burke
testified Pinney would require him to redo work if it was
not done correctly. R. Burke stated Pinney always
checked his (R. Burke 's) molds before he (R. Burke)
poured the aluminum patterns and always checked the
aluminum patterns after they were poured to see that
they were correct. 20 R. Burke also stated Pinney gave
employees Moffett and Pulliam their work assignments.
Pinney had the authority to pull a pattern from pro-
duction if it was not working to his satisfaction . Pinney
acknowledged on cross-examination that he decided
whether the work performed in the pattern molding area
was satisfactory and acknowledged that if he decided
any work was not satisfactory he told the employees
what it would take to make it acceptable . Pinney stated
he showed employees in the molding department how to
lay out the molds they worked on. Pinney acknowledged
he used the weekly production schedules to determine
what had to be done in any given week and to schedule
work for the pattern shop employees.
It is clear from the above facts that Pinney's duties in
assigning work to, and overseeing the work of, the pat-
ternmaking helper and the molding department employ-
ees are based on authority delegated to him by the Com-
pany and his duties required him to exercise a great deal
of independent judgment . Pinney was only provided
weekly production schedules setting forth what the
Company hoped to accomplish in any given week. It
was Pinney's task to decide what would be done and by
whom in the patternmaking and pattern molding depart-
ments and he generally and responsibly directed the
work of the employees in those departments . Pinney did
far more than merely direct the movements and oper-
ations of less-skilled employees who worked in the pat-
ternmaking and pattern molding areas . He was in com-
plete charge of those areas , gave orders, made work as-
signments, and was solely responsible for seeing that the
work performed in those departments was satisfactory.
The employees in those areas considered Pinney to be
their supervisor and understood that his orders were to
be obeyed. Simply stated , Pinney engaged in the basic
act of supervising the employees in the patternmaking
and pattern molding departments . Accordingly, I addi-
tionally find, for the above-outlined reasons, Pinney was,
at all times material , a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.at
One additional matter warrants review in considering
the evidence related to Pinney 's supervisory status. The
evidence establishes Pinney could and did effectively
so R. Burke testified Pinney was in charge of the pattern department
and he understood Pinney was his immediate supervisor.
31 Pinney's direction of the work of others goes far beyond that of a
routine nature and it was not simply based , as contended by the General
Counsel, on his artisan skills, but rather was based on his authority which
flowed from management and which identified him with management.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recommend wage increases for certain employees.
Pinney, when first testifying on cross-examination , stated
he had not recommended R. Burke for a wage increase.
However, when the matter was pursued further, he as-
serted he could not recall if he had recommended R.
Burke for a wage increase . When Pinney was recalled by
the General Counsel as a rebuttal witness, he then ac-
knowledged he had recommended R. Burke for a wage
increase . R. Burke testified Pinney recommended to
Plant Manager W. Burke that he be given a special wage
increase and he stated he thereafter received the wage
increase.32 Plant Manager W. Burke testified Pinney rec-
ommended that employee Dudley be given a wage in-
crease and added Dudley was , in fact, given one.33
From the above, it is clear Pinney could and did effec-
tively recommend rewards (i.e., wage increases) for em-
ployees and such demonstrates that he had and exercised
statutory supervisory authority.
In summary, I conclude and find that Pinney effective-
ly recommended the hiring and rewarding of employees
and he made assignments to and directed, with independ-
ent judgment, the work of others , and as such he was, at
all times material, a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act.34
ss According to the credited testimony of R. Burke, Pinney told Plant
Manager W Burke that R Burke 's work had improved and he should be
granted a labor grade increase
83 Pinney denied he made a recommendation that Dudley be given a
wage increase , but rather stated that when he was asked about a wage
increase for Dudley he told Plant Manager W Burke that it was W
Burke's decision whether Dudley got a raise . For the reasons set forth
elsewhere in this decision, I have not credited Pinney 's testimony when it
conflicted with that of other witnesses In addition , I note that Pinney
acknowledged he recommended R Burke for a wage increase after he
had first denied doing so, and after testifying he could not remember any
such recommendation . It appears Pinney's memory was affected by
whether he thought his answers would enhance or detract from his per-
ceived personal interest
34 I find it unnecessary to discuss some secondary indicia (such as the
fact Pinney had the same benefits as the production and maintenance em-
Inasmuch as I have found Pinney to be a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, and inasmuch as the Gen-
eral Counsel stated that all the complaint allegations
were based on a finding that Pinney was not a supervi-
sor, I shall recommend the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Opelika Foundry is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. International Molders & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material, William Pinney was a supervi-
sor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
4. The Company has not engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed38
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
ployees, parked in the same area that they did, and received wages that
were somewhat consistent with those called for in the collective -bargain-
ing agreement) in the instant case that would tend to mitigate against a
finding that Pinney was a statutory supervisor because such secondary in-
dicta cannot detract from the clearly established evidence that Pinney
had and exercised statutory supervisory authority.
as If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules , be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.