Hinson Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of RI-L-,,-SON MANUFACTURING'COMP_1NY, EMPLOYER and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMi LEMENT WORKERS or AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 18-R 1.6/9.Decided March 31, 1947 Pike, Sias and Butler, by Mr. B. F. Butler, of Waterloo , Iowa; and Mr. William, H. Hinson, of Waterloo, Iowa, for the Employer. Messrs . Charles J. Fane and Kenneth Everhart, of Waterloo, Iowa, for the Petitioner. Mrs. Sarah J. Blair, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Intervenor. Mr. Edmund J. Flynn, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AN D CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon ,,t petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on October 11, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether they desired to be represented by the Petitioner or the Intervenor for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.- At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots, showing 16 chal- lenged ballots, was furnished the parties.' Later, the parties agreed to withdraw certain challenges, and on October 23, 1946, a revised Tally was furnished the parties. The revised Tally discloses that of approximately 490 eligible voters, 412 cast their ballots: 207 for the Petitioner, 193 for the Intervenor, 10 for neither and 2 voted under cha l l enge.2 Thereafter, a hearing was held at Waterloo, Iowa; on December 19, 1946, before Stephen M. Reynolds, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed. 1In addition to the challenged ballots, this Tally disclosed 206 votes for the Petitioner, 180 votes for the Intervener, and 10 for neither. 2 Inasmuch as these challenged votes were not sufficient in number to affect the outcome of the election, no evidence concerning them was adduced at the hearing 72 N.L.R B,No.18 11 9 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. TILE 13USINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Hinson Manufacturing Company is an Iowa Corporation having its offices and plant at Waterloo, Iowa, where it is ealgaged in the manufacture of leather and textile products. In 1946, the Employer's sales of finished products amounted to approximately $'3,000,000, of which 98.5 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Iowa. During the same period the Employer purchased approximately $2,000,000 worth of raw materials, virtually all of which originated outside the State of Iowa. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. IT. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. United Garment Workers of America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT In accordance with an agreement of the parties,3 we find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Waterloo, Iowa, including shipping and receiving department em- ployees, but excluding office and clerical employees, confidential em- ployees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- 3 The Intervenor agreed to this description of the unit but at the-same time questioned the propriety of permitting certain employees within the unit to vote . This point is con- sidered in Section V, infra. HINSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 121 ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERDIINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Intervenor seeks to have the prehearing election set aside on the grounds that certain allegedly temporary employees were permitted to vote. The Intervenor did not challenge the ballots of these employees at the election , claiming as reason therefor that it misunderstood its right to challenge because of statements allegedly made by the Board agent at conferences preceding the election . Without going into the circumstances which allegedly led to the Intervenor 's misunderstand- ing, we find no merit in the Intervenor's position with respect to the employees in question for the following reasons. The Intervenor contends that the employees in question were tem- porary workers at the time their votes were cast and, therefore, that they did not have sufficient status as employees to justify their par- 'ticipation in a -choice of a bargaining'representative . In support of this contention the Intervenor asserts that the hiring of these em- ployees was attributable to an abnormal labor market which made them available for short -teiin employment only. The Intervenor further asserts that their temporary character is established by the fact that they left the Employer 's employ shortly after the election. In August or September 1946, the Employer advertised for new employees and among those hired were approximately 37 employees who, due to a meat shortage , had been discharged by a local meat- packing concern . These are the employees whose eligibility the In- •tervenor contests. The record shows that these employees were hired unconditionally and that at no time, either at the commencement of their employment or at any time thereafter, were they advised by the Employer that their employment was other than permanent . In fact, the Employer's vice-president testified that these employees were hired as permanent workers and, moreover , that it is not the practice of the Employer to engage employees on a temporary basis. The record further shows that at no time did these employees advise the Employer that their contemplated tenure was not a permanent one. During the period of their employment these employees worked under the same working conditions as the other employees of the Employer and with these other employees they shared whatever prospects existed as to the advantages of continued employment with the Employer. We therefore find, contrary to the Intervenor's contention, that the employees whose eligibility it contests had a substantial community of interest with all the other employees involved to warrant their par- ticipation in a selection of a bargaining representative, and that such 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD eligibility was not affected by the separation 4 of these employees from their employment after the election was held. The determination of voting eligibility must be made on the basis of conditions existing at the time the ballots are cast and not on subsequent fortuities.° Inasmuch as the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the prehearing election, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Auto nioblle, Aircraft and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the unit described in Section IV, above, as their representative for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative'of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other, conditions of employment. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. Only two of these euiplo%ees were in the Employer's employ at the hearing (late See Matter of Consolidation Coal Company, 63 N. L R B 169, 174, where war service employees were permitted to vote despite a contention that they were temporary and there- foie not expected to remain in the Company's employ The Board stated that inasmuch as these employees had "a reasonable expectancy of employment for an indefinite period, we ,,hall, in accordance with our usual piact(ce, include them within the unit" See, also, Matter of Underwood Machinery Company, 59 N. L R B. 42, 44: Matter of Norris, Incor- porated, 63 N L R B 502, 506, and Matter of N H Sargent and Company, 72 N. L R B. 220