Evening star., 1948-01-04
Supervisor Issue Roised
In New Lubor Decision
NLRB Rules Time Study Employees
Entitled to Union Protection
Rv Gerard D. Reilly

Entitled to Union Protection
By Gerard D. Reilly
One of the great contributions made by tn
| Tart Hartley Act in restoring some semblanc
Of equilibrium in bargaining relationships wa
its elimination Of the supervisor from the cate
CORY Of employe. Prior to the passage Of tn,
new law the Supreme Court had upheld thu
much debated decision Of the National Labor
Relations Board In the Packard case, which
held that supervisors were entitled to all the
rights of rank and file employees holding
which Mr.. Justice Douglas in his dissenting
opinion declared blurred the traditional dis
tnction between management and labor
One important segment of management,
however, has been left in twilight zone even
under the amended statute, according to an
opinion announced by the board last week In
case involving the Worthington Pump Corp.
In this decision which turned on the first
Interpretation the board has had occasion to
make Of the definition of supervisor" all i've
members agreed that time study men, whose
duty 1t is to fix the standards on industrial
operations for the purpose of computing In
centive bonuses, have the full protection Of
the act when they join labor unions and en-.
gage in concerted activity a."
During the period from 194S to ls45 when
the board was adhering consistently to the
doctrine that employers were not required to
bargain with labor organizations composed in
whole or in part OF supervisory personnel,
the board also refused to include time study
men, more popularity known as eficiency ex-
perts, within bargaining units. When a ma
jority OF the board overruled the earlier deci-
sions in the foremens cases. however, they
fOyYv, aenlyn
their position to apply the act to time study
engineers.
In these decisions the board went 10 far a.
to say that neither time study nor time star,d-
ards men were really managerial employees.
This view caused some surprise both In man
agement and In union circles One of the
most controversial issues at the bargaining
table in many plants is the number of time
studies which can be made with respect to
any particular machine operator and the pro-
cedure to be followed in the study. In factories
where such studies are conducted unions have
always regarded the time study man as Q
representative of management by insisting
upon having union steward present when
ever time study Is conducted with respect to
one OF the employees represented by the union.
studies is also kind of grievance which unions
may raise through the machinery OF the COL
lective agreement. The profitable and eco
nomic operation of many industries depends to
large extent upon the integrity with which
the time study men perform their duties.
Nevertheless the board does appear to be on
sound grounds in holding that the new act did
not remove time study men from the category
OF employees The original bill formulated by
Senator Ball which became the basis Of the
act did. contain clause which would have had
this effect 1t defined supervisors as indi-
viduals having authority Ito accept or reject
the work of other employees. or to determine
the amount OF wages earned by other EN-
ployes or to apply the factors on the basis of
which the wages of other employees are deter
mined"
When the bill was being considered IN the
Senate committee, however, this language was
eliminated by an amendment which carried
by vote Of 7-6. The proponents Of the
amendment believed that the provision deleted
was intended to cover bookkeepers, checkers
and timekeepers. Although they failed to note
the distinction between the performance of
such routine tasks and the duties Of a time
keeper, which involve considerable latitude for
independent Judgment, the matter was never
brought up again on the floor. The Senate
committee version ultimately triumphed In
conference.
Both Commissioner Reynolds and Comn1is-
sioner Gray filed special concurring opinions,
conceding that this legislative history sustained
the majority holding, although both OF them
stressed the important management role which
time study and standards men play For that
reason Mr.. Gray declared that If the board
had any discretion in the matter, personnel in
that category should not be included in any
unit for the purpose Of collective bargaining.
Mr. Reynolds wrote that 1t was his opinion
that time study men should never be repre-
sented by the same union which represents
rank-and-file employees because Of the danger
of a compromise in loyalties.
One result Of the decision which Is giving
lawyers some concern is It's possible impact
upon arbitration cases. In recent years a
number of strikes have occurred over the
issue OF unions demand that foreman or
personnel director who is obnoxious to the
union be discharged. Arbitrators have uni
formly held that the selection of supervisors
was a matter exclusively within the province
of an employer. Hence an issue arising over
the tenure Of a supervisor has been regarded
as not q bargainable subject and q strike
which has the discharge Of foreman as It's
object has been viewed as breach Of con-
tract In the American Optical case last May
this doctrine was also extended to time study
men. :.
In all Of these cases the arbitrators de-
pended primarily upon the language Of the
collective agreements they were called upon to
construe Yet the background of Labor Board
decisions and practices was relied upon to
reinforce their conclusions. 1t would be un-
fortunate II arbitrators should regard the
Worthington Pump decisions as some justi-
fcation for deviating from these precedents.
Should strike arise on this issue, 1t Is pos
sible that the language of the new act itself
may afford some measure of relief, as one
of the unfair labor practices in which unions
are forbidden to engage is that Of restraining
employees in "the selection Of representatives.
for the purposes of collective bargaining or