Southeastern Clay Co.

,r In the Matter of SOUTHEASTERN CLAY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED CEMENT, LIME AND GYPSUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, #249, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 10-R-d464.Decided April 25,1947 Mr. Paul H. Sanders, of Atlanta,-Ga., for the` Employer. Mr. Claude R. 117hite, of Perry, Ga., for the Petitioner. Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board. - I ' DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon 'a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on February 20, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the par- ties. The Tally shows that of approximately 37 eligible voters, 19 cast ballots for, and 18 against, the Petitioner. Thereafter, a hearing was held at Aiken; South Carolina, on March 5, 1947, before Alba B. Martin, hearing officer. At the hearing the Employer made an offer to prove that its employees were coerced into joining and voting for the Petitioner by certain statements of Peti- Aiongr's representatives. The hearing officer rejected evidence with respect to the offer. We hereby overrule the hearing officer in this respect All other rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. - Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : - FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Southeastern Clay Company, a South Carolina corporation having its office and plant in Aiken, South Carolina, is engaged in the business _ of mining and processing clay. The principal- raw material which it uses in its operations is clay, all of which originates within the State of 1 This offer of proof is discussed in Section V. - 73 N L. R B., No. 118. 614 SOUTHEASTERN CLAY COMPANY 615 ,South Carolina. During 1946, it sold clay products valued in excess of $100,000, of which about 95 percent represented shipments to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is ,a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em- ployer. III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Pe- titioner 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 We find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties , that all em- ployees of the Employer, excluding office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or -effectively -recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE OBJECTIONS As indicated above, a rehearing election was held among the em- ployees of the Employer in the appropriate unit. The Employer ob- j ects to the election on the grounds that (1) -an ineligible person, Brandon Hartley, voted at the election, and (2) the Petitioner coerced employees into joining , and voting for, the Petitioner. As to the first objection , Brandon Hartley's name was included on the eligibility list furnished by the Employer and agreed to by all parties before the election . He was permitted to vote without objec- tion and without challenge. The Employer made its first objection to Hartley 's voting several days after the election., Hartley, who is classified as a laborer, has been employed by the Employer for about 3 years on an irregular basis. When he is not working for the Employer he engages in farming. During the work- week covered by the February 6 pay roll, which was the pay roll used in determining eligibility to vote, Hartley worked 10 hours. During the preceding 4 weeks he worked, respectively, 45, 14, 39 and 54 hours. Following the election, he did not work again until the week ending 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD March 2. During that week he worked 32 hours. There is no evi- dence as to why Hartley did not work during the intervening 'period. It is clear, however, that Hartley did, not tell the Employer that he was quitting and that the Employer did not discharge him. We are of the opinion and we find that Hartley falls within the category of a regular part-time employee and is, therefore, included in the unit. We further find that he was an employee of the Employer on the day of the.election and was, therefore, eligible to vote. Accordingly, the Employer's, first objection is hereby overruled. As to the Employer's second objection, the Employer offered to prove that "at meetings of [its] employees called by union representa- tives, they were told collectively, that in the event the Union won-the election, that each of them' must join the Union or quit his job." Assuming, arguendo, that the Petitioner's representatives did make these alleged statements, they do not warrant invalidating the elec- tion. As we have previously held,'such statements are in the nature of legitimate campaign propaganda and do not preclude the-employees from freely exercising their choice at the polls 2 Accordingly, we find this objection to be without merit and it is hereby overruled. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Inasmuch as the results of the election show that the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Peti- tioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, #249, A. F. L., has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of Southeastern Clay Com= parry, Aiken, South Carolina, excluding office-and clerical employees,' and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, (jr effectively recommend- such- action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a). of the -Act, the said organization is the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in such unit for -the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. - CHAIRMAN HPRZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. 2 Matter of Maywood Hosiery MilL8, Inc., 64 N. L R. B. 146 ; see also Matter of American Dredging Company, 71 N L. R B. 401 , where the Board held that a similar statement "merely indicated the ligitimate consequences of the A. F. of L. winning the election and obtaining a closed shop agreement." -