The Murray Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 195 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE MURRAY COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL 1015
Case No. B-4664
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
I July 9,1943
On May 27, 1943, the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Supplemental Decision and Order 1 in this proceeding, vacating and
setting aside the election held on February 4, 194$, pursuant to the
Board's Decision and Direction of Election, issued January 14, 1943 2
On June 8, 1943, the Board issued a Second Supplemental Decision
and Second Direction of Election wherein it directed a second elec-
tion. Pursuant to the Second Direction of Election, an election by
secret ballot was conducted on June 17, 1943, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort
Worth, Texas). On June 18, 1943, the Regional Director, acting pur-
suant to Article III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, issued an Election Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported
as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters-------------------- 100.0%
Total ballots cast--------------------------------------- 96.9%
Total ballots challenged--------------------------------- 3.0%
Total void ballots-------------------------------------- 001o
Total valid votes cast----------------------------------- 100.0%
Votes cast for International Association of Machinists,
Local 1015-------------------------------------------- 41.2%
Votes cast for United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.) 57.8%
Votes cast for neither----------------------------------- 1.0%
On June 21, 1943, the International Association of Machinists,
Local 1015, herein called the I. A. M., filed objections to the Election
149 N. L. R. B. 1225.
2 46 N . L. It. B. 1097.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 44.
195
540612-44-vol. 51-14 _ _-
I96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Report. The Regional Director investigated the objections of the
I. A. M. and on June 28, 1943, issued his Report on Objections to the
Election Report.
The I. A. M. contends that The Murray Company, herein called
the Company, discriminated against the 1. A. M. by (1) threatening
certain set-up men, members of the I. A. M., with discharge if they
carried on any union activities on or off the Company's property; (2)
interfering with the right of an I. A. M. committeeman to carry on
normal union activities in that it restrained him from talking to
anyone in the shop and prevented him from leaving his machine;
(3) permitting members of the United Steelworkers of America
(C. I. 0.), herein called the C. I. 0., to distribute C. I. O. literature
on company property during working hours, while at the same time
denying the similar privilege of distributing union literature by
I. A. M. members.
The first contention involves it meeting called by the Company's
plant manager which was attended by all foremen and supervisors
and the following, set-up men : Z. W. Anderson, N. L. DeBord, and
Jimmie Folse. The Regional Director's report shows that on June
3, 1943, such a conference was called for the purpose of advising the
participants of their obligations under the Board's Supplemental
Decision and Order. In the course of this conference the plant man-
ager read a prepared statement to the group cautioning them, under
the penalty of immediate discharge, against making any statements
or committing any acts which might be construed as discriminatory
against any labor organization. The manager reaffirmed the Com-
pany's declaration of neutrality on labor matters and said, in part:
The Company does not care, and this has been made clear
previously, whether the C. I. O. wins the election, whether the
A. F. of L. wins the election, or whether the results of the election
show that the Shell Shop employees do not want to be bound
to either of these agencies as their bargaining agent. We tried
prior to,-the other election to keep you gentlemen in the position
of maintaining a "hands off" attitude. It is now our purpose to
see that you do maintain this position, and we are going to see
that you maintain this position if you stay in the employ of this
company. . . . Some of you gentlemen are not designated by
us as foremen or supervisors, but it has been determined that
it is not necessary that we designate an employee as a foreman
or supervisor for him to be looked on as such by the National Labor
Relations Board. If an employee gives instructions, which are
carried out, then this employee may be looked on as supervisory
personnel. In our opinion, any of you gentlemen present might
be ,placed in that category. I am taking this means of again
THE MURRAY COMPANY 197
informing you that from this hour forward all supervisory per-
sonnel of The Murray Company must, if they remain in the
employ of this company, maintain an absolute "hands off" policy
as to labor affiliations by statements, acts, or otherwise.
On the same day of the conference a list was posted by the Company
in its Shell Shop enumerating those employees whom the Company
considered to be its supervisory employees. This list omitted the
names of Anderson, DeBord, and Folse. The Company states that
its purpose in omitting their names from the list was due to its changed
plans of concentrating supervision into the hands of those whose names
appeared on the list, but that prior to June 3 it felt that the employees
had considered Anderson, DeBoard, and Folse as supervisory em-
ployees.
Z. W. Anderson. Several of the employees operating machines serv-
iced by Anderson stated that they considered him to be their super-
visor and they reported their grievances to him. One employee stated
that as late as the week prior to the issuance of the Report on Objec-
tions she had asked Anderson for permission to take off a few days.
Anderson did not say anything at the moment but came back in a few
minutes and gave her permission. She also stated that on several
occasions when i1; was necessary for her to be late on her shift she had
called to so advise Anderson and that he always told her it was- "all
right." Another employee stated that he considered Anderson to be
a supervisor because about 6 weeks prior to the Report on Objections
it became necessary for him to leave an hour earlier than usual and
that he asked Anderson for his permission, to which Anderson replied
"Go ahead."
Anderson denies that he is a supervisor, insisting that he is merely
a set-up man for eight machines which are operated by eight em-
ployees. He admits, however, that some time ago his foreman had
listed him as a supervisor and that he did take grievances or requests
for leave by the operators to his foreman.
N. L. DeBord states that he is the set-up man for 12 machines
operated by 12 employees. He states that he changes the operators
from one machine to the other according to his best judgment; that
he receives 15 cents an hour more than the machine operators; that
he considers the operators as "my crew"; that should an operator not
be, able to perform his work well, he would take the employee and
report the whole matter to the foreman; and that if any of the operators
want to be off for a day, or if they have any grievances, they come
to him about them, and,that he in turn goes to the foreman with the
matter.
Jimmie Folse is the set-up man on the second shift and occupies
identically the same position occupied by Anderson on the first shift.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He states that the operators look to him for instructions; that they
let him know when they are going to take time off; and that they
also discuss personnel matters with him, which he in turn'takes up
with his foreman; that his duties require him to see that the opera-
tors produce, and that he "gets after them" if they lag behind; that
although he cannot hire or fire, he considers himself a supervisor,
and that on January 1, 1943, he caused the discharge of a machine
operator who refused to abide by his instructions; that the foreman
had listed Anderson and himself as supervisors on the cards in the
bulletin board rack and until about 2 days prior to the speech given
by the plant manager; and that the other employees could have seen
and "I imagine they did see" these postings.
The second. allegation of the I. A. M. involves an incident in which
Anderson and C. W. Hodde, assistant superintendent of the Shell
Plant, figured. Hodde states that on June 8 he told Anderson to
discontinue talking to other employees in other portions of the Com-
pany's Shell Plant, and that he required him to remain in his own
machine area. Hodde also states that his talk with Anderson was
necessitated by Anderson's having previously engaged in unnecessary
conversation with other employees in other portions of the plant and
that on the day of his admonition he had found Anderson visiting
in several different portions of the plant carrying on conversations
with other employees, and that he felt that Anderson was abusing his
talking privileges and should be attending to the machines. Hodde
states that he did not direct Anderson to cease talking about unions
on or off the job, but that he did expect Anderson to refrain from
union activities pursuant to the instructions of the plant manager.
Anderson insists that Hodde had restrained him from campaigning
or talking about the I. A. M. on or off the job, but admitted that this
action did not change his previous plans with regard to voting at the
polls.
The third allegation of the I. A. M. involves Lochia Hyde and O. T.
Pirtle. Hyde stated that the only literature which she brought into
the plant was one copy of the C. I. O.'s "Steelworker" publication.
Pirtle states that he had brought approximately five handbills into
the plant and left them on the work table. Both of these employees
are non-supervisory production employees of the Company. There
is no evidence to the effect that the I. A. M. endeavored to engage in
union campaigning or other concerted activities which were restrained
in any manner by the Company, or that there was any disparity in
treatment as between adherents of the I. A. M. and the C. 1. 0.
THE MURRAY COMPANY
CONCLUSION
199
We agree with the Regional Director's recommendation that Z. W.
Anderson, N. L. LeBord, and Jimmie Folse were properly restrained
by the Company from engaging in or carrying on union activities,
as these employees are considered supervisory employees by the ma-
chine operators working in their respective sections of the plant; that
they do effect changes in the status of these employees and effec-
tively recommend the disciplining or discharge of such employees;
and that the nominal activities carried on by Lochia Hyde and O. T.
Pirtle, non-supervisory production employees, did not constitute dis-
criminatory treatment between the two organizations. We therefore
find that the objections filed by the I. A. M. have no merit, and they
are hereby overruled.
Since the challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election,
we find it unnecessary to make any determination with respect to
them.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Steelworkers of America
(C. I. 0.) has been designated and selected by a majority of all pro-
dduction and maintenance employees of The Murray Company, Dallas,
'Texas, in its Shell Plant, but excluding stockkeepers, timekeepers,
guards, and clerical and supervisory employees, as their representa-
tive for the purpose of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, United Steelworkers of America (C. I. O.) is
the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.