United Wall Paper Factories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 1423 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of UNITED WALL PAPER FACTORIES, INC. and DISTRICT
No. 108, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A. F. of L.
Case No. R-515 .-Decided May 31, 1943'
Lederer, Livingston, Adler, Kahn d Adsit, by Mr: Harry H. Kahn,
and Labor Relations Associates, by Messrs. Nathaniel S. Clark and
Philip C. Lederer, all of Chicago, Ill., for the%Compariy: - " '
Mr. J. W. Ramzsey; of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Lee J. Fitzpatrick, of
Aurora, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF,ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon,petition duly filed by District No. 108, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, A. F. of L.; herein called the Union, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of United Wall Paper Factories, Inc., Aurora,
Illinois , herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing 'upon; due notice before
Robert E. Dickman, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Chi-
cago, Illinois, on April 1, 6, 8, and 9, 1943. The Company and the
Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing, on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
_I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
United Wall Paper Factories, Inc., incorporated under the laws of
the State of Delaware and with its principal office in Chicago, Illinois,
operates manufacturing plants in various parts of the United States,
49 N L. R B , No. 199.
1423
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including a plant at Montgomery, Illinois. At the Montgomery
plant, the only operation involved in this proceeding, the Company
is engaged exclusively in the production of materials for the armed
forces of the United States. During the period from November 1,
1942, to March 30, 1943, the Company purchased for use, at its Mont-
gomery plant, raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, approxi-
mately 95 percent of which was shipped to the Montgomery plant
from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period the
Montgomery plant produced finished products valued in excess of
$50,000, all of which was shipped from the said plant to points out-
side the State of Illinois. •
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED , ,
District No. 108, International Association of Machinists, affiliated
with the American Federation, of Labor, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties- stipulated that the Union orally requested that the
Company recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the inspectors • employed by the, Company, and that the Company
refused to 'extend such' recognition until there was a certification by
the Board.
A statement .of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, and a supplemental statement made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing, indicate that the Union represents a substantial
number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union in its amended petition seeks a unit consisting of all
inspectors employed at the Montgomery plant, excluding Government
inspectors, the chief inspector, and all other employees of the
Company.
The Company's inspectors are employed in one of the three divisions
'The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted 8 authorization cards bearing
the apparently genuine signatures of persons whose names appear on the Company's
pay roll of February 3, 1943 At the bearing the Trial Examiner reported that the, Union
submitted 2 additional authorization cards bearing the apparently genuine and unduplicated
signatures of persons whose names appear on the same pay roll. There were 13 persons in
the appropriate unit on February 3, 1943.
UNITED WALL PAPER FACTORIES, INC.' 1425
of the Company's operations at the Montgomery plant. This division
consists of receiving, pressing, and assembly departments; respectively,
and the inspectors work in each of these three departments.. . ,
As materials: arrive at the plant they are brought, to the receiving
department„ wheret they are inspected by the receiving inspectors, of
whom there are, four. These inspectors examine the materials with
precision- instruments and those which do not conform to specifications
are' rejected and returned to the manufacturer. Thus it is apparent
that these inspectors do not in any way check the work of any fellow
'employees.
.
_ .
The pressing department performs the first portion of the manu-
facturing process, a series of pressing operations;.performed with
manually operated presses. The inspectors in this department,.of
whom there are three, go from one press to another and examine the
products by visual, inspection and by the use-of a rule and measuring
'tape. Any defective•products are removed and sent to another depart-
ment where "it ,is; decided whether. to. reject them or renovate and
correct them.
In 'the' assembly department, the various component, parts are
assembled to form: the finished product. The five inspectors in this
department use tapes, rules, and precision instruments to. check the
previously uninspected parts 'and. to check the finished product in order
to assure its conformity to specifications., Rejected materials and
'products are. sent to another. department for final disposition.. • ,
On Deceinber'29, 1942, in Case No. R-4488, the Union was certified
by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Com-
pany's production and maintenance employees, excluding the inspec-
tors:' In the instant case the Company contends that the inspectors
-may not properly be represented by the Union for the purposes of
collective bargaining because they are essentially representatives of
management-"supervisors" of the quality of the output of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees. The Company argues, in substance,
that if the inspectors are represented by the same union as that which
represents the production and maintenance employees, their allegiance
to the union and their fellow union-members will conflict with the
faithful performance of their duties, and they may be induced more
readily than otherwise to approve defective work. We find no merit
in this contention. Although the inspectors receive from 15 to 20
percent higher wages, they are paid on an hourly basis, like production
and maintenance employees; they have no authority to hire, discharge,
promote, or discipline any other employees, nor to recommend such
action; rejection by them of the work of production employees does
not have any direct or 'significant effect upon the earnings of those
' Matter of United Wall Paper Factories, Inc and Distract No 108, International Assocsa-
tion of Machinists, A. F. of L., 45 N. L R. B. 721.
1426 D'EICISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees ; they have no voice in determining or , shaping the labor
policy of the Company; and the Company has not advised them that
it considers them to be a part of management .3 It is clear that they
do not constitute management in the eyes of rank and file employees,
in the area of labor relations and policy, as do truly supervisory.
employees.4 Consequently, the considerations which impelled a ma-
jority of the Board recently to hold that supervisory employees may
not constitute appropriate bargaining units are here' inapplicable.b
The Company contends that several of the inspectors whom it refers
to as "group, leaders," have supervisory status; that they, have the
right to criticize the work of the other inspectors in their respective
departments, and to-recommend the hire and discharge of inspectors;
and that they have authority to stop production, if, they deem it
advisable, although continuance of the stoppage is the responsibility
of the chief inspector or assistant plant manager. It is undisputed
that these "group leaders" keep records of the number of rejections in
each department, although no attempt is made to determine which
employees have been responsible for the defective work., Only about
20 minutes of their working time each day is devoted to preparing
these records. It appears, however, that the so-called supervisory
inspectors--have meverc'been informed by the • Company of their super-
visory status or of any of the aforesaid incidents thereto. They have
never been consulted on matters involving labor policy and have never
been told that they have authority to stop production. We believe
that the supervisory powers of these "group leaders" are more theo-
retical than real. We will include them in the unit.
We find that all inspectors employed at the Company's Montgomery,,
Illinois, plant, excluding the chief inspector, Government inspectors,
and all other employees at the plant, constitute a unit appropriate for
-the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section'
9 (b) of the Act 6
3 A lone exception to this was an interdepartmental letter to one Whiteside an inspector
'in the receiving department, from a plant official, advising him that inspectors were repre-
sentatives of management and therefore not entitled to be members of the Union,,
We have fiequently held that inspectors may appropriately be included in the same unit
with employees whose product they inspect. See Matter of Gardner-Denver"Company and
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 522, A. F. of L., 44 N. L R B 1192; Matter
of Allis- Chalmers., Man u facturi no, Co and United, Electrical,, Radio it Machine Workers of
America, Local 765, 43 N L R B 255; Matter of Brown and Sharpe Manufacturing Company
and International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, 36 N L. R B 1083 .
5 Cf. Matter of Maryland Drydock Company and Local No 31 of the Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, 49 N L R B, No 105
The Union requested-that if an election is ordered and if it wins the election, the inspec-
tors be incorporated, into the unit of production and maintenance employees established
in the prior proceeding, Case No. R-4488. It appears that the Union agreed, in the prior
proceeding, that the inspectors were pioperly-excluded from the production and maintenance
unit We see no reason-for departing from the unit established by the previous bargaining
history and our own decision Cf Matter of American Can Company and Engineers Local
No 30 Firemen d Oilers Local No 56, 13 N. L R B 1252 The Union's request to con-
solidate the units is denied. -
I
UNITE 'D WALL PAPER FACTORIES, INC . 1427
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth in this
Direction. _
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of ,and pursuant to the power vested in the Nation al Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby -
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with United Wall Paper
Factories , Inc., Montgomery , Illinois , an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty ( 30) days
from the date of this Direction , under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject'to Article
III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations , among the employees in
the.unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed'
during the pay-roll ' period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction , including employees who did not work during said pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
off, and including employees in the armed , forces of the United States
who present themselves in person at the polls , but excluding those
employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be' represented by District No. 108,
International Association of Machinists , affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining. -
531 ;47-4 :-vo1 49-91
I
1