Custom Mattress Mfg., Inc., 111 (1998)
Custom Mattress Manufacturing, Inc. and United Steel Workers of America, District 10, AFL- CIO, CLC, Local Union 404-U, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-19206October 30, 1998 DECISION AND DIRECTION BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, has considered a determinative challenge in an election held October 3, 1997, and the hearing officer's report recommending disposition of it. The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows six for and five against the Petitioner, with two challenged ballots, a number sufficient to affect the results.1 The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and adopts the hearing officer's findings and recommendations only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Direction. The hearing officer found that Nasim Din is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and recommended that the challenge to her ballot be sustained. The Employer excepts, contending that Din does not possess any Section 2(11) supervisory authority. For the reasons set forth below, we find merit in the Employer's exception. The Employer manufactures mattresses at its facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Din is one of four employees in the Employer's sewing department. She spends approximately 8 hours a day working with other department employees on sewing and quilting machines. She is also responsible, along with another employee in the sewing department, for ensuring that work is performed according to a schedule prepared by the Employer's president and plant manager, Edward Davis. Additionally, she tests job applicants to determine if they know how to operate the sewing and quilting machines, opens the plant in the event Davis arrives late, and closes the plant after cleaning the bathrooms and taking the trash out. For these additional duties, Din receives $2 an hour more than other sewing department employees. Like the other department employees, Din is paid hourly and punches a timeclock. Din receives the same benefits as other employees. The hearing officer found, and we agree, that the Petitioner failed to show that Din has authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, discipline, direct employees, adjust grievances, or effectively recommend such action. Nevertheless, she found that Din is a Section 2(11) supervisor based on Din's testimony regarding her recommendations...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP