United States Gypsum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 7, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 370 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
M Rhoads H R Grimm B G Kriebel
W L Boyer R N Milliren R E Myers
P J O'Brien D W Milford C E Best
J W Ritchey G W Dunkle J J Corbett
P L Sollinger C R Burrell E R Kahl
W S Shaw F M Shick B Corbett
C H Hetzler P L Crape R H Fair
C A McMurdy A R McGinnis C H Jackson
R B Ritts J D Wetzel L E Confer
L E Rhoads D R Shoup E H Shoup
K D Yingling H H Dotterer C L Bell
R D Garris B E Crawford W L McNany
W G Champion H E Winkler W T Layton
F E Longnaker W L Sweetapple R F Gerwick
R J Grimm J W Hughes D M Davis
J E Louise J E Hughes C A Leopold
A R Russell, Jr L E Gerwick W C Shaffer
W D Weller V L McGinnis D E Shreffler
J R Kriebel A P Spirnock W W Kurtz
J C Weller H R Klmgler C B Bottz
F T Russell F J Hofacker W R Kahl
F D Middleton R E Lepley F, H Allen
A R Logue J L Cropp J J Lehnortt
G W Winslow G M Khngman F K Uhlott
G H Bechtel F P Say H E Kahl
J L Fleming G F Gerwick M E Andrews
D M Ritts GSRitts I F Gates
D W Wike R C Levy D W Dittman
K 0 Altman J A Defibaugh D J McGinnis
D R Confer F L Shawl H F Grimm
G A, Bechtel V A Kunselman H D. Courson
W G Berlin J R Stahlman D S Konkle, Jr
L A Murray J L Klmgler D W Schreffler, Jr
C K Mains E V Ashbaugh R E Fleming
L C Altman E M Hunsberger D A Elder
G S Long R V O'Brien J C Thompson
D S Konkle F Facing D W Kunselman
R C Sollinger T N Anderson R R Douglas,
L M Stewart I A Sheffer H A Fleming
C L Ace I A Novak C L Say
P 0 Smith H A Eckel E J Fisher
J M Russell L M McElhattan L H Patterson
J I Wetzel H R Shaner W J Steele
A Louise C C Cotterman J T Weller
M D Rhoades C A Jordan C D Kriebel
United States Gypsum Company and United Stone and Allied
Products Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No-
39-RC-1252 August 7,1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before C L Stephens, hear-
ing officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
horn 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-
121 NLRB No 53
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 371
member'panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
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 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The parties agree that a production and maintenance unit at the
Employer's New Braunfels, Texas, plant, excluding office and plant
clerical employees, professional employees, administrative employees,
testers, the master mechanic, maintenance group leader, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, is appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. The parties disagree as to the following classifications
whom the Employer would exclude as supervisors.
In support of its request for the exclusion of these classifications,
the Employer cites a previous decision of the Board, involving the
same plant, in which these classifications were excluded.' However,
in that case, the unit found appropriate was stipulated by the parties.
In this proceeding, the record as regards the duties and responsibil-
ities of these workers is more detailed. We therefore do not consider
the prior decision as determinative of the issues raised herein.
Head sorters: the kiln department is divided into two divisions, the
shaft kiln division and the rotary kiln division. The head sorters
work in the shaft division usually with a crew of three men. The
head sorter must see to it that the raw material going into the con-
veyor for the kilns is properly examined and inferior material ex-
cluded. He must also see to it that the quality of the lime produced
meets specifications. The usual precedure is for the foreman' to give
instructions to' the head sorter who carries them out with, his crew.
The head sorter is more skilled than the others, and has also had more
experience, but the major authority and direction are in the fore-
man. When work is slack, the foreman may order the-head sorter
to do other work with his crew, such as cleaning up and doing other
minor repairs. The head sorter receives $1.24 an hour as opposed
to $1.16 and $1.12 for the men who work with him, whereas the fore-
man is salaried and receives 33 percent above the head sorter's rate.
Shaft firemen "A": These men work in the shaft kiln division
usually with a crew of two men, one of whom is called a drawer and
works on the floor below the shaft fireman, and the other who is called
a. charger works on the floor above. The shaft fireman is responsible
a Case No. 39-RO -852 (unpublished).
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATFOXS BOARD
for seeing to it that the kilns are properly charged 'with the right
amount of stone and are run at the proper temperature- The fireman
keeps records of the quantity of gas berried in the. 10h, and read§.
meters after each draw. The shaft fireman exercises some direction
over the other two, but subject to the direction, of the kiilri foreman.
He receives $1.48 an hour as opposed to the charger who) gets $1.21,.
but this is 25 percent less than the kiln foreman.
Rotary kiln firemen "A": These men, work in the, rotary" division
,of the kiln department which contains equipment ' known as. a rotary
kiln. This is a highly mechanized kiln;, which is operated! by I rotary
fireman and 1 helper on each shift. It operates 2"4-hours- a day and 7
,days a week. The duty of the rotary fireman is to, see. to, it that the
kiln is properly charged and to keep. records of readings on the
instruments of the control panel. They receive, 36 cents per hour
more than their helpers. This classification did not exist at the time
of the last certification, but it was included in the last contract. The
Employer would exclude them, like the other alleged supervisors,
from the unit.
"Master mechanics class "A": These men are attached to, the engi-
neering department, doing all kinds of repairs, usually with the help.
of at least two men. Although they have some responsibility for
the work of their crews, general responsibility is fixed in the master
mechanic or mechanic foreman, as he is called, or the maintenance
group leader. They receive $1.60 an hour which is 6 cents more than
the mechanic "B" under them.
The head driller: The head driller or blaster works in the quarry
department, headed by a superintendent under whom are two foremen.
He works with a crew, usually of three men, and directs blasting
operations under the supervision of the foreman. He is responsible
for the proper loading of the blast holes and scaling the face of the
quarry after the blast. He is paid $1.36 an hour, which is 15 cents
more than the men who work with him and is 35 percent less than
his foremanis paid.
The Employer concedes and the record shows that: The employees
in the above disputed categories are hourly paid as opposed to fore-
men who are salaried; they receive overtime pay which foremen do
not; they .are .not entitled to bonus payments to which benefit fore-
men are entitled; they receive no sick leave, which foremen receive;
and they do not sign discharge forms, which function is performed
by foremen. - •
The Employer contends, however, that the disputed classifications
are supervisory'because they responsibly direct other employees. The
• witnesses in the disputed classifications specifically denied that they
exercised any supervisory powers, one witness stating that he had
been told he was a supervisor only the night before the hearing. We
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 373
find that none of the foregoing classifications appears to exercise more
authority or responsibility than is customary for the more experienced
and skilled member of any, craft or highly specialized mechanical
crew. To adopt the Employer's theory could, in the nature of the
Employer's operations, result ultimately in a request for the exclusion
of all employees except the lowest paid classification in each, separate
operation, a reductio ad absurdum approached by the Employer's
contentions herein.
Moreover, as noted in another case involving the Employer : 2
Before commenting on the detailed work of each disputed
category, we note another element in the total picture of this
case, which the Board has consistently deemed highly persuasive
in the ultimate determination of supervisory issues. If we were
to exclude the employees in the disputed categories as super-
visors, the ratio of supervisors to rank-and-file employees would
be highly disproportionate.
For example, in the kiln department there is a kiln superintendent,
a kiln foreman, and, according 'to the Employer's contentions, 3 hourly
supervisors, the head sorter, the shaft fireman, and the rotary fire-
man-all these supervisors for 6 rank-and-file employees. In such
situations, the Board has found the disputed categories not to be super-
visors.' Accordingly, we find that the head sorters, the shaft firemen
"A;" the head driller, and the master mechanic "A" are not super-
visors and constitute a proper residual group.
As the foregoing employees are not supervisors but production and
maintenance, workers, they have a clear community of interest with
the remaining employees and appropriately belong in the same bar-
gaining unit with them.4 However, as they have been excluded in
the past from the present existing bargaining unit and from the
pertinent collective-bargaining agreements, they are now entitled to
a self-determination election for the purpose of deciding, as a separate
group, whether they wish to be represented by the Petitioner and
added to the existing bargaining unit .k We also find that the rotary
kiln fireman "A" is not a supervisor. Because this classification has
been included in the bargaining unit, we find that he is not a part of
the residual group but is included in the production and maintenance
unit presently represented by the Petitioner.
Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections in the following
groups of employees at the Employer's New Braunfels, Texas, plant :
2 United States Gypsum Company, 119 NLRB 1415.
a United States Gypsum Company , 118 NLRB 20.
• United States Gypsum Company, 118 NLRB 20 . Cf United States Gypsum Company,
120 NLRB 906, wherein the Board found, on the basis of the record, therein, that certain
classifications were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134, as amended , 109 NLRB 312, 862. -
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. All production and maintenance employees including the rotary
kiln firemen "A," but excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical
employees, professional employees, administrative employees, testers,
the master mechanic, the maintenance group leader, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
B. All mechanics Class "A," " shaft firemen "A,"- head' sorters, and
the head driller, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of employees in voting group B vote against the Pe-
titioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain
outside the presently recognized unit, and the Regional Director is'
instructed to issue a certificate of results of election to that effect. If
a majority in voting group A only cast their ballots for Petitioner,
they will have indicated their desire to be represented by the Peti-
tioner, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification
of representatives to the Petitioner as to this unit, which we find under
the circumstances to be appropriate.
On the other hand, if a majority in voting group B vote for the
Petitioner; that group will appropriately be included in the presently
recognized unit and their votes shall be pooled with those in voting
group A.6 If a ,majority of the pooled group select the Petitioner,
the 'Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to Petitioner for such unit, which, under the circumstances,
we find appropriate.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from, publication.]
6 In the event the votes are pooled , they shall be accorded their face value.
S. S. Kresge Company and Retail Store Employees Union, Local
344, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO and Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartend-
ers International Union , Local 243, AFL-CIO, Petitioners.
Cases No's. 14-RC-3310 and 14-RC313. August 7, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on January 30, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on February 20, 1958, under the direction and. supervision of
the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the close of
the elections, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
1 Not published.
121 NLRB No. 50.