United States Gypsum Company, Employer And United Paper Workers Of America, Cio, Petitioner, 162 (1949)

In the Matter of UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 6-RC-193 AMENDED DECISION ORDER AND SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION July 13, 1949 On January 26, 1949, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled case.1 Thereafter, on February 10, 1949, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's Decision and Direction of Election with respect to the exclusion from the appropriate unit, as supervisors, of the head beatermen, head loaders, bottomer operators, tuber operators, and machine tenders employed at the Employer's Oakmont, Pennsylvania, plant. On February 11, 1949, International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, although not a party to the proceeding, also urged reconsideration of the Board's Decision, and moved at the same time to intervene herein. On February 21, 1949, the Employer filed a Statement in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration; and Motion of Employer to Strike. On February 21, 1949, the Board issued its Order granting the Petitioner's Motion,2 reopening the record, and remanding the case to the Regional Director for further hearing on the question of the supervisory status of the individuals in the disputed categories.

Pursuant to the Board's Order, a hearing was held before Erwin Lerten, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the 1 2The Employer's statement and Motion was received by the Board on the same day that it issued its Order. The Statement contained no new matter not already considered by the Board. The Motion was directed at allegations made in the Petitioner's Memorandum in support of its Motion for Reconsideration. As these particular allegations had no relevance to the issues in this proceeding, the Board has not considered them, and the Employer has not been prejudiced thereby. The Employer's Motion is therefore denied.

162 hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3 The requests of the Petitioner and of International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, for oral argument are hereby denied, as the entire record of the original 4 and of the reopened hearing, and the briefs 6 in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.

Upon reconsideration of this case, and upon the entire record herein, the Board makes the following supplemental findings of fact:

The appropriate unit:

The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Oakmont, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The parties are in general agreement as to the composition of the unit. The Petitioner, however, would include head beatermen, head loaders, bottomer operators, tuber operators, and machine tenders, whereas the Employer would exclude them on the ground that they are supervisors within the meaning of the amended Act. These categories were excluded from the unit in our original Decision on the basis of the uncontradicted testimony of the Employer's works manager. The entire record, however, as further developed at the reopened hearing, shows the situation as to the disputed categories to be as follows:

Head beatermen: There are three head beatermen in the Employer's plant, one on each shift. Each head beaterman has two helpers. The works manager of the plant here involved, presented as a witness by the Employer at the original hearing herein, testified that 50 percent of the time of a head beaterman is spent in supervision, and that the remainder of his time is devoted to manual labor along with his helpers; that a head beaterman is consulted about promotions; and that he has the responsibility to recommend discipline or discharge of his helpers. On the other hand, a witness for the Petitioner at the reopened hearing, who had worked as a head beaterman in this plant for 2 years, testified that he spent 'in eight hours about ten minutes' telling other people in the beater room what to do. This witness further testified that, although he was asked 'once in awhile' for his opinion regarding new employees in the beater room, he...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT