Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc.

6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CLIPPARD INSTRUMENT LABORATORY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1038. April N4,1951 Decision and Order Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election ' issued on De- cember 21, 1950, an election was conducted in this proceeding on January 17, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the unit here- tofore found appropriate. The tally of ballots shows 60 valid ballots cast for the Petitioner; 9 valid ballots cast for the Intervenor; 2 52 valid ballots cast against, both labor organizations ; and 24 challenged ballots. the Intervenor filed timely objections to the conduct of the election, alleging that, about January 16, 1951, the Employer polled its employees during working hours to determine whether they desired to be represented by a labor organization, and promised them benefits if they voted against such representation.3 The Intervenor requested that the election be set aside. On February 28, 1951, the Regional Director issued his report on challenged ballots and objections to the election. The Regional Di- rector, finding that the Employer's conduct raised substantial and material issues with respect to the election, although the Employer refused to admit or deny the facts as found, recommended that the election be set aside, but made no investigation or recommendation concerning the challenged ballots. On March 9, 1951, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report, agreeing with his recommendation that the election be set aside (for the reason that it was inconclusive), but excepting to his failure to pass on the validity of the challenged ballots. The Employer contends in its exceptions that the Regional Director should make an investigation of the challenged ballots on the ground, in substance, that because the voters whose ballots were challenged may vote at a new election, a present determination of their voting eligibility will then be advantageous. We do not agree. Employees who voted and whose ballots were challenged at the first election might not appear at the polls to vote at a new election. If, however, they do vote at the new election, it does not follow that their ballots will be challenged, or that the challenges to their ballots, if there be any, will be for the same reasons as those given at the first election. We therefore see no advantage in resolving these questions of voting i Unpublished. R Lodge 789 , District 34, International Association of Machinists. 3 On January 17, 1951 , the Intervenor filed charges of unfair labor practices in Case No. 9-CA-366, alleging these acts as violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. On March 8 , 1951, the Regional Director issued a complaint in Case No . 9-CA-366. 94 NLRB No. 4. J. N. ADAM & CO. 7 eligibility at this time, and find no merit in the Employer's contention. We therefore overrule the Employer's exceptions. Accordingly, as there is no exception to the Regional Director's recommendation that the election be set aside, we shall set aside the election, and shall direct that a new election be held when the Regional Director shall advise the Board that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.' Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on January 17, 1951, among employees of Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc., at its Cincinnati, Ohio, plant, be, and it hereby is, set aside. CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Order. 4 Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, 82 NLRB 161. J. N. ADAM & CO. and BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL 264, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-604. April 24, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Cavers, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.3 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 1 At the hearing, Local 449 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of Ameiica , A. F. L., withdrew its motion to intervene herein. P At the hearing, the Employer and Retail Clerks Union , Local 212, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association , A F L., the Intervenor herein , moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner 's showing of interest is inadequate. The hearing officer referred ruling on the motion to the Board. Because it is well established that the requirement of a showing of interest is an administrative expedient , not litigable by the parties , we deny the motion. Veneer Products, Inc., 81 NLRB 492. 8 We find no merit in the contention of the Intervenor that employees involved herein are ineligible for membership in the Petitioner , and therefore may not be found to constitute an appropriate unit. A jurisdictional limitation on membership is not con- trolling on the unit issue . Denton's, Inc., tea Robinson-Schwenn Store, 83 NLRB 35, and cases cited therein. 94 NLRB No. 5.