General Chemical Co.

In the Matter of GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY and UNITED GAS, Col m & CHEMICAL WORKERS` OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS: ,OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Case No. R-5025 (f3-R-3799) SECOND' SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION July 21, 1944 On January 28, 1,944, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued its Supplemental Decision and Second Direc- tion of Election in this proceeding.,, Pursuant to the Second Direc- tion of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on Febru- ary 17, 1944, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City). On April 8,1944, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, issued and thereafter duly served upon the parties his Report on Election and Challenges. As to the ballot- ing and its results, the Regional Director reported as follows : Approximate number of eligible voters----------------------- 192 Total ballots cast---------------------------------------- 189 Total ballots challenged ------------------------------------- 34 Total void ballots------------------------------------- ---- O Total valid votes counted----------------------------------- 153 Votes cast for United Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers of America, C. I. 0--------------------------------------------------- 82 Votes cast against participating union ------------------------ 73 In the Report on Election and Challenges, the Regional Director reported that, other than with regard to two employees whose vote was challenged,2 the evidence available was insufficient to determine the duties of the challenged employees and recommended that the 'The Supplemental Decision directed a new election in the unit previously found appropriate in the original Decision and Direction of Election Issued April 1, 1943 (48 N. L. R. B. 923). S The Regional Director recommended that John Chabat; an employee retired on a pension at the date of the election, be found Ineligible to vote. He further recommended that Elizabeth Flannery , a janitress employed in cleaning the offices and relating service rooms, be included within the group of eligible employees. 57 N. L. R., B., No. 94. 524 GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY 525 Board direct a hearing to establish the facts regarding the duties of such employees. No objections were filed by any party to the Report on Election and Challenges aforesaid. On May 6, 1944, it appearing that substantial and material issues had been raised with respect to the challenged ballots, the Board directed a hearing thereon. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing on the challenged ballots was held on May 23, 24 and 26, 1914, at Jersey City, New Jersey, before William E. Spencer, Trial Examiner. , The Board, the Company, and United Gas, Coke & Chemical"Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called 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. All parties were afforded the opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT 1. William Zeilman, John Gasparovic, James Chieco, Marie Blaso, Mary Cook, Katherine Caputi, Felicia Hatala, Theresa Mrazek, and John J. Chabat, were challenged by the Board upon the ground that their names did not appear on the eligible list of voters. With the exception of Chabat, the same issue is presented with regard to all of the aforesaid employees, namely, whether or not at the date of the election they were employees who had been "temporarily laid off," within the meaning of the provision relating thereto in the Direction of Election. The record discloses that between September 13 and October 29, 1943, the employees heretofore mentioned were released by the Company as the result of shortages in critical materials neces- sitating a curtailment and partial suspension of the Company's opera- tions. While certain members of this group testified at the hearing that they had been told by representatives of the Company, on the occasion of their releases aforesaid, that the lay-offs were only tem- porary, such statements are denied by witnesses for the ,Company, including two foremen who testified that the lay-offs were for an indefinite period, the end of which the Company could not foresee. It is admitted by the laid-off employees that no suggestion was made by the Company, on the occasion of the lay-offs in question, as to when they might be recalled to work. It further appears that notwithstand- ing a denial on the part of one employee, the Company gave to the employees in question unconditional statements of release from employ- ment, which statements were subsequently taken by the employees concerned to the United States Employment Service for the purpose 526 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of securing employment with other concerns. The record indicates that, as of the date of the election, all the aforesaid employees had secured other employment of an'indefinite duration.' Under the cir- cumstances, we find that the-employees•in question had, on the date of the election, little expectancy, of. reemployment by the Company and were not "temporarily laid off" within the usual definition of employees in this category.3 We find, accordingly, that they were ineligible to vote at the election and shall declare their ballots invalid. With respect to Chabat, it appears that he had for some time been working under the handicap of an arm injury, which condition led to his `request for retirement approximately a year and a half prior • to the date of the most recent hearing. In its brief, the Union makes no mention of Chabat and apparently does not contest the recommenda- tion of the Regional Director. We find that Chabat, by his voluntary retirement from employment with the Company prior to the date of the election,,had as of such date little, expectancy of reemployment and was, therefore, not properly a memher of the production and main- tenance group' We shall, accordingly, declare his ballot invalid. 2. Anthony Fasciano; Henry Eisenhauer, Herman Hartstein, Robert Becker, Frank Schueler, John, Kettig, William Heydash, Anthony Nayman,5 Louis Bonagura, J. Mosconi, John Klepacki" Anthony Horvat, Joseph Nemetz, Philip Hoffeller, Fred Petersen, Alfred Petersen, and C. Brandt were challenged by the Union upon the ground that they were supervisors e Of the afore-mentioned em- ployees, it appears that Fasciano, Hartstein, Becker, Heydash, and Bonagura occupy substantially 'similar positions with respect to various groups of craft employees. The record further indicates that Klepacki, Brandt, Mosconi, and Alfred Petersen are shift operat- ing engineers attached to the powerhouse and that Eisenhauer and Schueler are contact operators in the sulphuric acid division. The re- maining employees of the alleged supervisory group have miscellane-, ous duties which 'are unlike those of any other employees hereinabove mentioned. The various employees herein concerned will be con-, sidered as members of the-said groups for the purpose of determining their eligibility under the terms of the appropriate unit.' ' See Matter of Bristol Steel & Iron Works, 47 N. L. R. B. 1429; Cf. Matter of Oliver Farm Equipment Company, 55 N. L R. B. 118. ' See Matter of W. D . Byron & Sons of Maryland, Inc., 55 N. L. R. B. 172. O This is the same person whose name appears_ as Arthur Nayman in the Regional. Director's Report on Election and Challenges. The parties subsequently agreed that Thomas McElwreath and William Dowling, two , additional employees whose votes were challenged at the election, should be Included within the appropriate unit. we shall, accordingly ;" declare their ballots valid. 7 The appropriate unit as found by the Board -in its original Decision consists of "all production and maintenance employees at the Company 's Edgewater, New Jersey, plant, excluding office help, supervisors and watchmen." GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY The alleged supervisors of, craft groups 527 Anthony Fasciano is classified as chief rigger and as such leads and works with a group of five riggers to whom he relays instructions, received each morning. from,,the master mechanic, who is in general charge of all maintenance craft groups. While Fasciano has no general supervisory powers over the riggers in his group, he lays out the. work for the other riggers and on occasion has criticized a rigger for inattention to duty. The extent of Fasciano's right to' criticize and report on the work of other riggers is indicated by testimony from Fasciano that, in the event a rigger repeatedly left his work, he would report the fact to the master mechanic. On the other hand, it appears that Fasciano has the sane hours and working conditions as the other plant employees; that his work is principally manual labor; that he keeps no time slips or other records; that his rate of pay is somewhat higher than that of the other riggers only by reason of his greater experience; and that he makes no reports on the progress of the work to the master mechanic, unless the latter happens to visit the location while the work-is going on. Herman Hartstein is classified as chief pipe fitter and as such leads and works with a group of approximately six other pipe fitters, to whom he relays instructions received from the master machanic. Like Fasciano, Hartstein has no general supervisory powers. Moreover, he, cannot grant time off to employees; neither does he lay out work, determine what work is to be done, attend foremen's and management meetings, or approve documents of any' kind. Like the other pipe fitters, he is paid an hourly wage and enjoys the same working con- ditions as the plant employees generally. His primary responsibility as chief pipe fitter is to assure a sufficient supply of pipe for any work undertaken by the pipe fitters' group. While it appears that Hart- stein does not usually direct or instruct the pipe fitters in their work,8 he does on, rare occasions direct- the-pipe fitters when working as a large group in connection with a sizable undertaking.° However, even on such occasions, he does not have the right to hire, discharge, punish, or discipline the pipe fitters with whom he is associated. Robert Becker, while not formally classified as a "chief," works with a group of four electricians under the general direction of the master mechanic, from. whom he relays instructions in the same man- ner as the other chiefs previously considered. Like the latter indi-' viduals,. Becker is an experienced employee whose hourly rate is some- what higher than that of the other members of his group, but who 8 Hartstein testified that if a pipe fitter should ask his advice as to how to perform a particular operation he would tell him. 8 The testimony of one Wiesenhofer , a pipe fitter, that the pipe fitters follow the direc- tions of Hartstein apparently has reference to these occasions. 528 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD otherwise enjoys the same working conditions, ' does actual manual labor 10 and has no general supervisory powers with respect to the employees with whom he is directly'associated. His primary respon- sibility is apparently that of maintaining the electric motors in run- =ning condition. The-.record=contains no evidence -thatBecker"has criticized or reported the other electricians for incompetency or re- 'fusal to perform the work to which they are assigned. There is also no evidence that Becker even occasionally directs the electricians in 'their work, other than to direct them to the locations to which they are to go in accordance with the general instructions of the master iechanic. ' William Heydash is classified as chief carpenter and as such works with and relays to; a group of carpenters and helpers, instructions re- ceived each morning from the master mechanic. Like the "chiefs" heretofore mentioned, Heydash is an hourly paid employee who per- forms manual'labor, enjoys the-same working conditions as the other employees in his group, and is without general supervisory powers. While one of the carpenters testified to the effect that Heydash had criticized his work on several occasions and had told him to do it over again, there is no evidence that Heydash has ever reported such individual, or any other employee to the master mechanic for incom-' petence or inattention to duty 11 Louis Bonagura is classified' as chief painter and as such,leads and works with a'group of two painters and one helper to whom he relays instructions received from the master mechanic. Bonagura is an hourly paid employee who does manual labor similar to that of the other painters and has no general supervisory power. As chief painter, his primary responsibility, is apparently that of ordering the necessary equipment and materials for doing the work authorized by the master mechanic. The record indicates that, notwithstanding testimony 'to the effect that Bonagura has given orders to the group of painters, such testimony has reference merely to the instructions received from the master mechanic and relayed. by Bonagura to the other employees in his group. _ We are of the opinion and find that, aside from the usual duties of group leaders and the admitted authority to relay instructions; the employees hereinabove referred to as "chiefs" have no substantial supervisory powers and are not supervisory employees within the 10 The electrical work performed by Becker is concerned1with the repair of electric motors and is apparently of a higher order than that done -by, the other electricians who work on small assignments. 11 Heydash testified that he had never reported a carpenter for being disobedient and that, aside from telling a man to go to work and stay at ' his post, he would take no action with respect to a carpenter found idling at his task. ,i GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY 529 meaning of our usual definition .12 Accordingly , we shall, declare their ballots valid. The shift operating engineers . Of the four employees in this ' group, Klepacki' alone testified at the hearing . 'In the absence of the-other members of the group, it was stipulated by the p'arties' that th'e testi- mony of the other three shift operating engineers would be sub- stantially the same as that of Klepacki . The latter testified ' that he is' an operating 1engineer at the powerhouse where he is in 'charge of maintaining and 'operating all machinery during the period covered by his shift. In,the performance of this work, he is assisted by a ' fireman and an oiler who perform the usual duties of such employees. While it appears that Klepacki is an hourly paid employee who lacks general supervisory powers; the record also ' discloses that he checks the work of the fireman and the oiler , reports inefficiency to the chief engineer,13 and is in practical control of the power plant during the latter's absence therefrom 14 Incidental to such control, it is the duty of Klepacki to notify the chief engineer if a fireman 'or oiler reports for work in an unfit condition or is otherwise derelict in the perform- ance-of his duty'.15 We-find that the chief operating engineers are supervisory employees within our usual definition. " We'shall, there- fore, declare their ballots invalid.16 The • contact operators. Frank Schueler and Henry Eisenhauer, referred to as contact operators , occupy identical ,positions in the sul- phuric acid division . The duties of these employees consist of watch- ing dials and valves for the purpose of regulating temperatures in the production "of sulphuric acid. The' Union claims' that both are supervisors upon the basis of their relations to certain 'employees known as burners and water coolers. There is, however, no evidence that either Schueler or Eisenhauer supervises or has any particular relation Ito such employees other than that arising from integration of their work in the completion of the final product. We find that Schueler' and Eisenhauer have no supervisory powers: Accordingly, we shall declare .their ballots valid. 1' See Matier'of G 'Levor & Company, Inc, 56 N. L R ^B. 574 11 Klepacki testified that the chief engineer would customarily take 'his word with regard to a man's ability. . ' 14 The 'chief engineer is 'customarily absent throughout the period covered by the shift to which Klepacki Is assigned.. The chief, engineer is also absent from the, powerhouse for substantial ', portions of the shifts served by the other operating 'engineers hereinabove mentioned.' 11 While ,the chief engineer testified that Klepacki and the other shift operating engineers Have no supervisory powers with respect to the firemen and oilers and that alI 'employees in the powerhouse perform their duties in accordance with standing written instructions, It would appear that; in the absence of ' the chief engineer, the shift operating engineers are the de facto representatives of management and are regarded as such by the other powerhouse employees. 36 See Matter of Bisbee Linseed Company, 34 N. L. R. B. 272 ; see also Matter of Nash Motor Parts Plant Division of Nash Keivinator Corporation, 46 N. L. R.' B:'1093. 601248-45-vol. 57-35 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Miscellaneous employees alleged to, have supervisory duties John Kettig is an hourly paid employee who is usually employed at the Company dump in the unloading and dumping of waste prod- ucts from railroad cars.17 In the course of his work he is assisted by a helper over whom he is alleged to have supervisory authority. There is, however, nothing in the record to indicate that Kettig has any supervisory authority with respect to the helper in question other than that arising from the usual relation between a helper and a more experienced employee. We find that Kettig has no supervisory powers. We shall, accordingly, declare his ballot valid. Anthony Nayman is employed as a cooper repairing barrels. In this work he is associated with five other coopers over whom he is alleged to have supervisory authority. However, aside from the testimony of one cooper to the effect that Nayman sets up his work and indicates the kind of barrels he wants made, there is no evidence that this em- ployee directs or supervises in any way the other coopers in his group.- The record indicates that Nayman is simply a skilled craftsman whose greater experience has won him the respect of the other coopers with whom he works. We find that Nayman has no supervisory powers; we shall declare his ballot valid. Anthony Horvat is an hourly paid employee who has worked for the Company for approximately 20 years. During this period he has performed various kinds of manual labor at the Company's yard and dock and is admittedly a general handyman. There is no evidence that this employee, who at times works with a crew of approximately 8 or 9 men, has any supervisory authority over the members thereof.19 The Union makes no mention of Horvat in its brief and apparently does not press its contention previously made with respect to this employee. We find that Horvat is not a supervisory employee. We shall; accordingly, declare his ballot valid. Philip Hoffeller, an hourly paid employee in the acetic acid barrel- ing department, is engaged in the filling of barrels and carboys with acetic acid. In the performance of this work, he is alone about 90 percent of the time, but is on occasion assisted by one Kolmos who does the same kind of work but is less experienced than Hoffeller. The record contains no evidence that Hoffeller has any general super- visory powers or that his relations with Kolmos are anything other than the usual relations between an experienced employee and one who is comparatively new in his position. We find that Hoffeller is an "When not employed in dumping waste products , he performs ordinary manual labor at the Company's yard and dock. 18 Nayman testified that he had no supervisory powers over the other employees herein concerned. 1^ Ilorvat testified that he has no supervisory powers and that he does not direct or report the other laborers with whom he is at times associated. GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY , 531 ,ordinary production employee without supervisory status; we shall, declare his,ballot valid: I I - Fred Petersen, who is classified as a tractor operator, operates a tractor part time and also is engaged in the unloading of boats and cars on the dock and in the yard. In the latter type of work, he is associated, with a gang of men over whom he has no supervisory powers other than the right given him.by the dock foreman to transfer men from one type of loading to another, in order when necessary to equalize the work between jobs. There is, however, no evidence that such transfers in any way affect the wages or working conditions of the men therein concerned: There is also'no evidence to support the claim made by two employees that Petersen is their foreman.?° The record reveals that, aside from the necessity of going to the office of the dock foreman from time to time in order to deliver to the fore- man the tally of materials unloaded, Petersen has no close relation- ship to management and enjoys the same privileges and is subject to the same working conditions as the other employees. We find-that., Petersen has no substantial supervisory' powers and, accordingly, we -hall declare his ballot valid. Joseph Nemnetz is an hourly paid employee who has among his other duties the responsibility pf checking the materials loaded upon trucks. In the course of this work, he is associated with a crew of approxi- mately eight men who accompany him from one department to another and load trucks with material which Nemetz' identifies as proper: Aside from his duties in connection with the loading of trucks, there is no substantial evidence -that Nemetz has, general supervisory pow-, ers.21 On the other hand, it is clear that he' has considerable duties of a clerical nature which he performs at a desk in the office of the dock foreman.12 While we find that Nemetz has no substantial. supervisory, authority, we find that he is primarily an office employee; 3 which categor was excluded from the appropriate unit. Accordingly, we shall declare'his ballot invalid. , '3. Amelia Wescott, John Mannion, Arthur Nemetz, Elizabeth' Flannery, Henry Evans, and William McConnell were challenged by the Union upon the ground that they were not production and mainte- nance employees. 20 The claim made by such employees is specifically denied by Petersen who testified that he never told them he was their boss or gave any orders except to relay the orders received from the dock foreman 1 -1 2' The only evidence of supervisory duties exercised by Nemetz is testimony of two employees to the effect that Nemetz is a foreman ' notwithstanding the fact that there' is no evihence that, Neniet,j. bears the title•of, foreman or is, clothed with 'the authority incident to such position ' '2 Nemetz estimates that his work is approxunately. 25 percent checking, 25 percent labor and 50 percent office work , . 23 See Matter of Fairbanks Morse and Co, 40 N L B. B. 455. Matter of O,cenx, Iltncois Glass Company, 53 N L• R..B '1114: ' , , ' , • ' , , . , - 532 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Amelia Wescott, whom the Union claimed at the hearing should be excluded as coming within the category of office help , is an hourly paid employee who works as typist and general secretary ' to'the pur- chaser of materials in an office located in the storehouse and generally known as the storehouse ' office. Her only connection with produc- tion and maintenance operations arises from the -fact that, in the absence of the regular storeroom employee, she occasionally enters the storeroom and gets materials and supplies which she hands over to production ' and maintenance employees . While the Company contends that her storeroom activities are an indispensable part of maintenance, the record clearly indicates that her duties are primarily clerical and that her occasional act of substituting for the storeroom employee consumes a relatively small part of her ordinary working day:24 We find that she is an office employee and we shall , accord- ingly, declare her ballot invalid. John-Mannion is an hourly paid employee whose work is performed in the plant office of the master mechanic and comprises all the clerical work done in that office. •Mannion admittedly does no -production and maintenance work other than to work on maintenance records and to carry store orders to employees in the maintenance depart- ment. His work, which is -otherwise purely clerical ; includes the checking of employees' time cards and the writing of requisitions for materials. We find that Mannion is an office employee ,' and as such, is ineligible to vote. We shall, accordingly, declare his ballot invalid. Arthur Nemetz, an hourly paid employee , is employed as the part- time,operator of a station wagon and also' as a general laborer: The claim of the Union with -respect to this employee is that he is primarily a truck driver and, as such, is not a production and -maintenance em- ployee. While, it appears that on the day 'of the- election , Nemetz ,drove the station wagon a substantial portion of the day, the record indicates that his operation of the station wagon does not usually, require more than an hour of his time in any one day , the remainder of'his day being spent in, manual labor. Aside from his duties •as part- time operator of the station wagon, Nemetz has no present duties' iri- any'way resembling those of a truck ' driver 25 We find that Nemetz is properly' within the terms of the appropriate unit.26 Accordingly, we shall declare his ballot valid. Elizabeth Flannery is an hourly paid employee whom the Union contends should be excluded as an office worker. The duties of this employee consist largely of building maintenance work , including. the 2± The employee herself testified that the storeroom employee is on duty practically 80 percent of the time and that during this period she is almost -constantly-at her desk. 1 25 Nemetz formerly worked as a truck driver's helper but is not presently employed in this capacity - 'e See Matter of Consolidated Vuitee Aircraft Corp . (Elizabeth City Division ), 54 N. L.' R B. 579.' - GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY 533 -dusting, cleaning, and general care of the.offices, ladies' room and first- aid room, located in the office building of the Company. We,find that Elizabeth Flannery is an ordinary maintenance employee. We-shall, accordingly, declare her ballot valid. Henry Evans, who is classified by the Company as a safety inspec- tor, has the responsibility of making inspections throughout the plant, for the purpose of observing plant hazards and reporting thereon, to- gether with the investigation of accidents. While he has no, general supervisory authority and is the only employee engaged in this activ- ity, Evans occasionaly warns employees whom he sees in dangerous positions and also reports to the foreman involved. In addition thereto, it appears that Evans regularly attends semi-monthly safety meetings held by foremen and other representatives of management, and at times acts as the presiding officer at such meetings. His only connection with actual production and maintenance work arises from the fact that on occasion he also weighs ore and sulphur and maintains the plant scales in working condition. We are of the opinion, and we find, that Evans occupies a position comparable-to that of a safety engineer, and that, by reason of his participation in meetings with foremen and his single responsibility for maintaining conditions con- ducive to the safe operation of the Company's plant, his duties and in- terests 'are closely aligned to those of management.27 We find, ac- cordingly, that he is not within the group of employees eligible to vote at.the election and shall declare his ballot invalid. William McConnell, a college trained salaried employee, works un- der the master mechanic and is engaged in engineering work. McCon- nell'•s duties comprise, for the most part, the checking of drawings, the estimating and checking of material status, and the keeping of cost accounts. In addition thereto, he also- does some manual labor with the rigger crew. He is classified as an apprentice in training and shares a, desk with the plant engineer, in the master mechanic's office where he spends more than 50 percent of his time. -While McConnell has no general supervisory powers and has no personnel who regularly work under his direction,?8 he attends safety meetings together with foremen and- other representatives of management and is apparently in the position of an understudy to the plant engineer with whom he is closely associated in the solution of engineering problems. Under the circumstances, we find that McConnell has duties and interests closely aligned to those of management and distinguishable from the interests of production and maintenance employees. We find that he is not a 27 See Matter of Richard Ore Company, 37 N. L R. B. 544; Cf. Matter of Bethlehem- Fairfield Shem,ard, Incoi porated, 51 N L R B 506 "McConnell testified that he checks construction pith the construction gang but has no authority over the employees on construction jobs. 534 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD production and maintenance employee and, accordingly, shall declare his ballot invalid. For the reasons indicated above, we conclude and find that William Zeilman, John Gasparovic, James Chieco; Marie Blaso, Mary Cook, Katherine Caputi, Felicia Hatala, Theresa Mrazek, John J. Chabat, John Klepacki, C. Brandt, J. Mosconi, Alfred Petersen, Joseph Nemetz, Amelia Wescott, John Mtp pion, Henry Evans, and William, McConnell were not entitled- to^vote in the election and their ballots are herebly declared invalid. We further find that Thomas McElwreath, William Dowling, An- thony Fasciano, Herman Hartstein, Robert Becker, William Heydash; Louis Bonagura, Frank Schueler, Henry Eisenhauer, John.Kettig, Anthony Nayman, Anthony Horvat, Philip Hoff eller, Fred, Petersen, Arthur Nemetz, and Elizabeth Flannery were eligible to vote in the election and their ballots are hereby declared valid. Since the results of the election may depend on the counting of the 16 challenged ballots declared valid, we shall direct that they be opened and counted. DIRECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National ,Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the-National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with General Chemical Company, Edgewater, New Jersey, the Regional Director for the Sec- ond Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board set forth above, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction open and count the -ballots of Tomas McElwreath, William Dowling, Anthony Fasciano, Herman Hartstein, Robert Becker, Wil- liam Heydash, Louis Bonagura, Frank Schueler, Henry Eisenhauer, John Kettig, Anthony Nayman, Anthony Horvat, Philip Hoffeller, Fred Petersen, Arthur Nemetz, and Elizabeth Flannery, and there- after prepare and cause to be served upon the parties in this proceed- ing a Supplemental Election Report, embodying therein-his findings and his recommendations as to the results of the ballot. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Direction.