Great Northern Icing Co.

In the Matter of GREAT NORTHERN ICING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS Or AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 321, CIO, PETITIONER In the Matter of A. T. MILLER AND ESTATE OF ADDISON MILLER, n/B/A ADDISON MILLER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORIii;Its or AMII:RICA, LOCAL UNION No. 321, CIO, PETITIONER Cases Nos. 19-R-1681 and 19-R-1855, respectively SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION March, 31, 194i On September 24 and 25, 1946, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by the Board herein on August 26, 1946,1 elections by secret ballot were conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washing- ton). Upon the conclusion of the elections, Tallies of Ballots were furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The Tallies show: (1) In the production and maintenance voting group, there were approximately 22 eligible voters, of whom 20 voted for the Petitioner; (2) in the assistant engineers' v8ting group, there were approximately 8 eligible voters, of whom 3 voted for the Peti- tioner, 2 voted for the Intervenor, 1 voted against both labor organiza- tions, and 2 voted under challenge. Inasmuch as the challenged ballots in the assistant engineers' voting group were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election in that group, the Regional Director investigated the challenges, and on November 5, 1946, issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Challenges recommending that the challenges be overruled. On November 13, 1946, the Petitioner filed Exceptions to the Regional Director's Report. On November 29, 1946, the Board, after consider- ing the Report on Challenges and the Exceptions thereto, ordered that a hearing be held on the issues thus raised. Pursuant to this order, a hearing was held on January 15, 1947, at Spokane, Washington, before Patrick H. Walker, hearing-officer. The heariiig officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 70 N. L. R B. 682. 73N L R B,No.17. 116 GREAT NORTHERN ICING COMPANY 117 Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : Supplemental Findings of Fact Eligibility of R. G. Eisenba°tlt: Upon his return from military serv- ice, Eisenbarth was reemployed at the Employer's Hillyard plant on July 10, 1946, as a relief foreman and relief engineer. As an acting foreman, he performs the usual duties of a dock foreman, a classifica- tion excluded from the assistant engineers' voting group as super- visory. As an assistant engineer, he performs the usual duties incident to that classification. For 6 months of the year, during normal and peak operations, Eisenbarth occupies this dual capacity, working 3 days of each week as a foreman and 3 days as an assistant engineer. He continued in this dual capacity through the date of the election. During the remaining 6 months, the slack season, hq works exclusively as an assistant engineer. Inasmuch as Eisenbarth spends 75 percent of his time as a nonsupervisory assistant engineer, we find that he has a sufficient interest to be entitled to vote in the election among the employees in the voting group composed of assistant engineers. Ac- cordingly, we hereby overrule the challenge to his ballot. Eligibility of G. 0. lllitling: On June 5, 1946, after his return from military service, Mitling was reemployed at the Employer's Yardley plant. From that date until August 9, 1946, he worked as an assistant engineer. On August 9, 1946, he was transferred to the position of timekeeper and continued in that job until November 1, 1946, a period of about 3 months. On November 1 he reverted to his former position of assistant engineer. He continued in that position only 1 month until December 1, when he was transferred to Detroit Lake, Minnesota, as superintendent of ice-harvesting operations at one of the Employ- er's projects in that State. At the time of the hearing, Mitling was still working in Minnesota. The Employer expects to return Mitling to the Yardley plant during the coming spring and summer months to work as an assistant engineer unless, as occurred during the past season, circumstances arise requiring a different assignment. The election was held on September 24 and 25, 1946. On those days Mitling was employed as a timekeeper, a category ineligible to vote in the election. The Employer contends, however, that Mitling's trans- fer to the timekeeper's position was only temporary and he therefore remained eligible to vote in the assistant engineer's voting group. Mitling's work history does not, support this contention. Approxi- mately 6 months elapsed from the time of Mitling's reemployment by the Employer to the date of the present hearing. During that time, Mitling held three different positions, only one of which was in an included category. During that 6-month period, lie worked only 2 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD months as an assistant engineer at the Yardley plant. On the basis of this work history we are unable to say that Mithng is regularly an assistant engineer and was only temporarily transferred out of the unit. We find that Mitling was not eligible to vote in the election. Accordingly, we hereby sustain the challenge to his ballot.2 DIRECTION IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region shall in conformity with the applicable provisions of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, open and count the challenged ballot of R. G. Eisenbarth. He shall there- upon prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots including therein the count of the afore-mentioned ballot. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 2 See Matter of Manganese Ore Company, 54 N L R B 1192, 1214