Electronic Laboratories, Inc.

In the Matter of ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. and UNITED ELECTRI- CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE W ORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 11-R'-862 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION July 11, 1946 On February 6, 1946, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding.' On February 28, 1946, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, In- diana). Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. No Objections to the Conduct of the Election were filed by any of the parties within the time provided therefor. The Tally shows that of the approximately 588 eligible voters, 474 cast valid ballots, of which 241 were for the Union, and 233 were against the Union. Thirty-one ballots were challenged. On April 17, 1946, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Ar- ticle III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties a Report on Challenges in which he recommended that the Board conduct a hearing on said challenges. On April 24, 1946, the Board, having duly considered the Report on Challenges, ordered a hearing thereon. The hearing was held at Indianapolis, Indiana, on May 14, 15, 16, 1946, upon due notice before James A. Shaw, Trial Examiner. The Union and the Company appeared and participated. All parties 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 an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following : 1 65 N. L. R. B. 840. 69 N. L. R. B., No. 52. 701592-47-vol. 69-29 433 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT Eligibility of Margaret Losh, Lois Cohee, Elmer Woolsey, and Beatrice Baker At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the challenges by the Union to ballots cast by the above-named employees were valid. In accordance therewith, we direct that the said challenges be sustained and that the ballots of Margaret Losh, Lois Cohee, Elmer Woolsey, and Beatrice Baker not be counted. Eligibility of Lloyd Hum fleet, Elmer Pate, Francis Yates, Alfred Bugg, and E. T. Orth At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the challenges by the Union to the ballots cast by the above-named employees were invalid. In accordance therewith, we shall direct that the said challenges be overruled and that the ballots of Lloyd Humfleet, Elmer Pate, Francis Yates, Alfred Bugg, and E. T. Orth be opened and counted. Eligibility of Mildred S. Kirk The Company challenged the ballot of Mildred S. Kirk on the ground that she was not an employee of the Company on the eligibility date determined in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election.2 The evidence shows that she was employed by the Company on June 5, 1945, and was laid off on October 8, 1945, at which time she sur- rendered her identification badge and received a check in full for wages due. In November 1945, the Company, as part of its recon- version program, started production of electronic toys, at which time it called back employees laid off at approximately the same time as Mildred Kirk, some of whom she superseded in seniority. Whereupon, Kirk called upon the General Manager, who, after investigation of her case, informed her that her work had been unsatisfactory in the vibrator department where she was last employed and that as there was no other work available the Company was not in a position to rehire her. We are therefore of the opinion that Mildred Kirk, on the eligibility date, had no reasonable expectation of reemployment in the near future, and that the termination of her employment on October 8, 1945, was permanent. We direct that the challenge to the ballot of Mildred S. Kirk be sustained and that her ballot not be counted. 2 February 1, 1946. ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. 4:35 Eligibility of Clarence Fltllam, Helen Jane Pettas, Lucy Belcher, and Margaret T. Pickerell The Company contends that these employees, whose ballots were challenged by the Board's agent because their names did not appear on the eligibility list, were not employees of the Company on the eligibility date. The evidence shows that all of the employees in question were hired between November 21st and November 27th, 1945, incident to the newly inaugurated electronic toy program. After the conclusion of the Christmas trade the production of electronic toys was discontinued and approximately 100 of the 350 employees working in the Assembly Department, including the employees in question, were laid off. The Union contends that their lay-off was temporary due to a lack of materials.' However, in our opinion, the evidence shows that the lay-off was part of a large scale reduction in force due to the termination of electronic toy production. Furthermore, it is undisputed that none of the employees in question had any established seniority rights 4 We therefore conclude that at the time of their lay-off the probability of their reemployment was not sufficiently substantial to warrant a conclusion that their termination of employ- ment was only temporary .5 Accordingly, we direct that the challenges to the ballots of Clarence Fullam, Helen Jane Pettas, Lucy Belcher, and Margaret T. Pickerell be sustained and that their ballots not be counted. Eligibility of Margaret Hinesley The Company challenged the ballot of the above- named Margaret Hinesley on the ground that she was not an employee of the Company on the eligibility date. The evidence shows that she was employed by the Company on July 20, 1943. It is undisputed that she was an employee of the Company on January 19, 1946, when she returned from The Union bases this contention on the lay -off slips issued to Helen Pettas and Clarence Fullam wherein the foremen issuing the slips had entered a notation , "temporary lay-off due to material shortage." In this regard , the evidence shows that the notations were inadvertently made by production foremen without the authority or knowledge of the Personnel Office or higher management officials , and that such notations did not, in fact, indicate the true status of the lay-off as otherwise revealed in the record . No notation concerning reasons for lay-off appears on the lay-off slips issued to Lucy Belcher and Margaret Pickerell. 4 All new employees are given a booklet of information and instruction , issued by the Company, in which it is specifically stated that "the seniority of a new employee shall start only after the first three months of service." The evidence shows that employees leaving the Company with less than 3 months service are not eligible for reinstatement but can only be rehired pursuant to submission and approval of a new employment application. It is undisputed that all of the employees in question had been employed by the Company less than 3 months at the time of their lay-off. Cf. Matter of The Crosley Corporation, I3 N. L. R. B. 349 , and Matter of Noblitt-Sparks Industries, lee., 64 N. L. It. B. 1501. 6 Matter o f Parks Air College, Inc., 55 N. L . R. B. 1034. 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sick leave. Because of her past illness she was directed to report to the company physician for physical examination. Upon reporting for such examination, she was not examined but was informed to go to the Personnel Office where she was informed that she was included in a general lay-off of employees then in progress.6 Inasmuch as this employee had seniority with the Company dating from July 20, 1943, at the time of her lay-off, we are, of the opinion that she could have reasonably expected reinstatement in the near future. Accordingly, we shall direct that the challenge to the ballot of Margaret Hinesley be overruled and that her ballot be opened and counted. Eligibility of James Saver, James Hudson, Lloyd Gaddie, Fred Armour, Marvis Sample, and Upshore Readis The Company contends that the challenges by the Board's agent to the ballots of the above-named employees should be sustained on the ground that they were specifically hired on a temporary basis and that as temporary employees they were ineligible to participate in the elec- tion. The evidence shows that in January 1946 the Navy Department ordered the Company to crate and ship large quantities of Govern- ment property pursuant to a large scale cancellation of Navy con- tracts. The foremen of the packing department filed a requisition with the Personnel Office for 20 temporary men for this particular job. The Company requested the United States Employment Serv- ice to provide these men, specifically indicating that the work would not exceed 90 days. The employees in question were among 17 men recommended to the Company by the United States Employment Service for this job. They were informed at the time of their em- ployment that their job would not last over 90 days.? It is clear from the record that these employees understood that their work was only temporary. Inasmuch as these employees were only tem- porarily employed and had no expectancy of permanent employ- ment, we are of the opinion that they were ineligible to partici- pate in the elections Accordingly, we direct that the challenges to the ballots of James Saver, James Hudson, Lloyd Gaddie, Fred Armour, Marvis Sample and Upshore Readis be sustained and that their ballots not be counted. Eligibility of Earl Bell, Jasper Bright, and Leroy Harrison The Union challenged the ballots of the above-named employees on the ground that they are supervisory employees. The employees in It is clear that her lay-off was part of a general reduction in force, and not, as the Company contends , for physical disability, ' The record shows that the job was completed and all temporary employees thereon were released by April 13, 1946. 8 Matter of Jasper Cabinet Company, 61 N. L. It. B. 961. ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. 437 question are plant guards. During the war the plant guard force was militarized and these employees held military ranks in the military organization thereof. However, shortly after V-J Day the guard force was demilitarized and the plant guards were specifically included in the unit found appropriate herein. Although the record shows that all guards have, at their own discretion, continued to wear their uni- forms and insignia, there is no evidence that the employees in question have ever had, either before or after demilitarization, any authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action. Accord- ingly, we find that they are not supervisory employees within the Board's customary definition thereof and we shall direct that the challenges to the ballots of Earl Bell, Jasper Bright, and Leroy Harrison be overruled and that their ballots be opened and counted. Eligibility of Doyle Bowman The Union challenged the ballot of Doyle Bowman on the ground that he is a supervisory employee. The evidence shows that he is clas- sified as an electrical inspector in the inspection department. There is no evidence in the record to show that he has ever had authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action .0 We are therefore of the opinion that he was not a supervisory employee within the Board's customary definition thereof. Accordingly, we shall direct that the challenge to the ballot of Doyle Bowman be overruled and that his ballot be opened and counted. Eligibility of Paul Bailey, Lester Patrick, and Ralph Lyle The Union challenged the ballots of the above-named employees on the ground that they were supervisors on the afore-mentioned eligi- bility date. The evidence shows that they are classified as stock clerks and that they perform the customary duties associated with such classification. Their rate of pay is commensurate with that of other stock clerks. There is no evidence in the record to show that they have any authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees. We are, therefore, of the opinion that they are not supervisory employees within the Board's customary definition thereof. Accordingly, we shall direct that the challenges to the ballots of Paul Bailey, Lester Patrick, and Ralph Lyle, be overruled and that their ballots be opened and counted. " On some occasions , because of his duties as a roving inspector , this employee charged time to Account No. 801, a supervision account , as this was the only account to which this time could properly be allocated as an indirect labor cost . In the 30-day period preceding the election herein, only 8 percent of his time was charged to Account No. 801. The Union's contention that Bowman, on one occasion, approved the time card of another employee is not supported by the evidence. 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Eligibility of George Auble, Jr. The Union challenged the ballot of George Auble , Jr., on the ground that he was a supervisory employee on the eligibility date. The evi- dence shows that this employee is a jig and fixture maker and is also experienced in metal and woodworking machinery . In November 1945, when the Company began the manufacture of electronic toys, he was assigned to a woodworking assembly line where he made the jigs and fixtures for the various machines and had charge of the mechanical operation of such machines . He also instructed employees in the use of machines and equipment on the new line, performing some of the duties of a group leader' ° However, there is no evidence in the record that he has ever had any authority to hire, promote , discharge, discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action . We are therefore of the opinion that he is not a supervisory employee within the Board 's customary definition thereof. Accordingly, we shall direct that the challenge to the ballot of George Auble, Jr., be overruled and that his ballot be opened and counted. Eligibility of Opal Doyle At the election , the Union challenged the ballot of Opal Doyle on the ground that she was an employee of the engineering department on the eligibility date and, as such, was specifically excluded from the unit found appropriate herein. At the hearing on the challenges, the Union further contended that she was a supervisory employee. The evidence shows that she served for a short time as a supervisor in the assembly department . However, it is undisputed that on January 22, 1946, prior to the eligibility date, she was replaced as supervisor and demoted to an assembler in Department 91. She had no connection with the engineering department until February 4, 1946. when she was ordered to that department to assemble a piece of equipment that the engineers were developing." She worked there until March 15, 1946 , when she returned to her regular job as an assembler in Department 91. During the entire time she was work- ing in the engineering department her time was charged to Depart- ment 91. It is clear from the above facts that on the eligibility date she was working as an assembler in Department 91 and had no super- visory authority within the Board's customary definition thereof. Accordingly, we shall direct that the challenge to the ballot of Opal Doyle be overruled and that her ballot be opened and counted. 10 Group leaders were specifically included in the unit found appropriate herein. 11 There were no assemblers attached to the engineering department. ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. 439 Eligibility of Norman Roesser The Union challenged the ballot of Norman Roesser on the ground that he was a model maker and, as such, was specifically excluded from the unit found appropriate herein. The evidence shows that he is classified by the Company as an electrical inspector. He is charged with the repair, maintenance, and calibration of electrical meters. There is no evidence to show that he has ever worked as a model maker. Accordingly, we direct that the challenge to the ballot of Norman Roesser be overruled and that this ballot 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 At. and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Electronic Labora- tories, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, the Regional Director of the Elev- enth Region, shall, pursuant to said Rules and Regulations, within 10 (10) days from the date of this direction open and count the chal- lenged ballots of Lloyd Humfleet, Elmer Pate, Francis Yates, Alfred Bugg, E. T. Orth, Margaret Hinesley, Earl Bell, Jasper Bright, Leroy Harrison, Doyle Bowman, Paul Bailey, Lester Patrick, Ralph Lyle, George Auble, Jr., Opal Doyle, and Norman Roesser, and shall thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Supple- mental Tally of Ballots, including therein the count of said challenged ballots.