NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 111
ent,24 foreman, 25 or personnel director, 25 in the same manner. When
lesser personages in the industrial hierarchy are involved, the Board
has attempted to determine whether they are employed in a supervisory
capacity. If such is the case, the employer is charged with
responsibility for their activities." The determination of whether
an employee has supervisory powers requires a close analysis of his
duties.
In Matter of T. W. Hepler, 28 the employer denied that his floorboys
were supervisory employees and that he was responsible for
their activities. He relied heavily on the fact that the floorboys
had no authority to hire or discharge. The board answered this contention
in the following language:
= * * the record indicates that the fioorboys distribute work to the girls,
that they are .in charge of production, that they are placed in control of the
plant whenever Hepler is not personally present, and that they are considered
by the girls as supervisors. As we have held in analogous situations [citing
Matter of American Manufacturing Company, et al., 5 N. L. R. B. 443], the
extent of the supervisory authority in fact exercised by the floorboys, coupled
with the fact they were recognized by the employees as supervisors, clearly
supports the conclusion that such employees must be classed as supervisors.
In another case the Board, finding that certain assistant department
heads were supervisory employees, said :
The respondent contends that these employees cannot be considered as
supervisory employees, and that their activities were entirely independent
of the respondent. In particular, the respondent points out that the sole power
to hire and discharge rests with its personnel manager. There can be little
doubt, however, that one executive cannot pass on the merits of more than
800 employees without the advice of persons in intermediate positions, who are
in close contact with those under them. The employees named above have the
responsibility for discipline in their respective departments. They assign the
work that is to be done and report disturbances in office efficiency to the
executives.2
24 Matter of The Griswold Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge No. 11.97. 6 N. L. R. B. 298.
Matter of New Idea. Inc. and The A. F. of L.; Matter of New Idea, Incorporated, and
American Federation of Labor. 5 N. L. R. B. 381.
•- fatter of Yates-American Machine Company and Amalgamated Aesociation of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers of North America. Lodge 1787. 7 N. L. R. B. 627.
2 Matter of M. Lowenstein & Sons. Inc.. and Bookkeepers'. Stenographer., and Accountants'
Union. Local No. 16. United Office and Professionol Workers of America. C. 1. 0.;
M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.. and Textile WorkerR' Organizing Committee Local No. isk,
C. I. 0.; M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.. and United Wholesale Employees of N. Y., 6 N. L. R. B.
216. the Board. in discussing the respondent's contention that it was not responsible for
the acts of its supervisory employees, stated :
"It may well be that none of the respondent's executives ever gave instructions to any
of its employees to form or to encourage an organization in opposition to the Bookkeepers',
Stenographers', and Accountants' 'Union of Textile Workers Organizing Committee. Nevertheless
it is normal for an employee to assume that those who are in positions of authority
represent to a large extent the wishes of the employer. The respondent was informed
from the start of the activity of the Employees' Group, that it was being actively supported
by several employees who had positions of authority, and that its supporters were
creating the impression, true or false, that the Employees' Group was the organization
which the respondent favored. Yet no effort was made to correct that impression, even
though the executives were specifically requested to do so on more than one occasion. The
respondent could probably have avoided the impression created by the acts of Levy,
Scheideberg, Lessner, and Morrell. as well as the other highly paid employees woo professed
to know the respondent's attitude toward the unions, by a simple declaration to its
employees of its true position. It chose not to do so. The respondent's contention that
a statement on its part that it was neutral would have been to the advantage of the
Bookkeepers', Stenographers' and Accountants' 'Onion cannot be sustained: the only advantage
that would have accrued to the Bookkeepers'. Stenographers'. and Accountants'
Union would have been the elimination of an advantage enjoyed by the Employees' Group
which it had no right to enjoy. - See al .o Ballston-Stalwater Knitting Co., Inc., and
Textile Workers Organizing Committee. 6 N. L. R. B. 470. enforcement denied sub flora.
Rallston-Stillwater Knitting Company, Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 98 F. (2d),
758 (C. C. A. 2nd. 1918).
2, Matter of T. W. Hepler and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, 7 N. L. R. B.,
255.
22 Matter of M. Lowenstein 6 Sons, Inc., and Bookkeepers'. Stenographers'. and Accountants'
Union Local No. 16, United Office and Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0.;