Huntsville Manufacturing Co.

HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 891 ,ees requested by the Petitioner constitute only a segment of tha Em- ployer's unrepresented plant clerical employees,3 to grant -"them a separate unit would require that we give controlling effect to the extent of the Petitioner's organization among such plant clerical employees. The Act, as amended, precludes a finding on this basis alone.4 More- over, it appears that there are certain clerical employees, such as the stenographic clerks A and B, who are not sought to be included in the unit although they perform functions similar to those of the requested -employees. We shall therefore dismiss the petition. Order Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3It is now well settled that timekeepers engaged in the normal functions of their classification , like those involved herein, are in fact plant clerical employees . Arcade Manufacturing Division of Rockwell Manufacturing Company, 96 NLRB 116 ; Goodman Manufacturing Coin pang, 93 NLRB 1001 ; Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg Co. Inc, 93 NLRB No. 90 , Westelox, Division of General Time Instruments Corporation , 82 NLRB 198; II. 0. Canfield Company, 76 NLRB 606 ; Northwest Engineering Company, 73 NLRB 40. 'To the extent that Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 288, contains language which .appears to be inconsistent with existing Board policy respecting timekeepers, it is hereby overruled 4 Section 9 (c) (5). See Westclox, Division of General Time Instruments Corpora- tion, supra. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PETITIONER and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO . Case No. 10-RM-77. October 17, 1951 Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election entered into by the Employer and the Unions"on June 25, 1951, an 'election by secret ballot was conducted on July 10, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which shows that of approximately 1,397 eligible voters, 1,388 cast ballots. Of the ballots cast, 844 were in favor of, and 540 against, the Union, 2 were challenged, and 2 were void. On July 16, 1951, the Employer filed objections to the election. On August 17, 1951, the Regional Director issued a report on 'elec- tion, objections to election, and recommendations to the Board, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Board certify the Union. 'The Union is acting in its own behalf as well as in behalf of its affiliated Local 38, -which has members within the appropriate unit. 96 NLRB No. 127 S92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On August 27, 1951, the Employer filed exceptions to the report, in substance alleging that the Regional Director did not conduct a proper investigation of its objections within the meaning of Section 102.61 of the Rules and Regulations, and that Board agents improperly influenced the election by allowing an ineligible voter to cast a chal- lenged ballot and by permitting employees who were union officers to •act as observers? - With regard to the Employer's first ground of exception, the Regional Director has reported that, upon receipt of the Employer's objections and in accord with usual Board practice, he requested the Employer to submit prima faicie'evidence, in affidavit form, of persons having first-hand knowledge respecting the matters raised in the objec- tions. The Employer's reply merely requested that the Board agent theretofore assigned to the case be replaced by another agent, although it expressly stated that it did not in any way wish to cast any imputa- tions of any kind. The Regional Director informed,the Employer that the assignment was made on the basis of availability of personnel, geography, and case load of individual staff members, and that, since the Employer had made no allegation of misconduct but, on the con- trary, had denied any imputations of any kind against the Board agent, the investigation would not be reassigned. The Employer was again requested to submit prima facie evidence in support of its objec- tions. In reply, the Employer repeated its objection regarding the- assignment of the investigation, and refused to comply with the request ,for prima facie evidence. Although the Employer thereafter cast vague innuendoes against the agent, it has not made any -specific charges. . We find that the assignment of -the investigation of the objections to the Board agent who conducted the election was proper, in the absence of any valid allegation of misconduct on the part of the agent.' In view of the fact that the Employer was twice requested to furnish some evidence of its claims and refused to do so, and in the absence of any manifest interference with the election, we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the investigation was proper and sufficient .4 - With regard to the chalenged balot, the Employer contends that acceptance under challenge of the ballot of a replaced striker consti= tuted a breach of the consent agreement. However, this contention is .2 The Employer originally objected that the Board agent 's retention of the ballot box in his custody away 'from the presence of the observers between voting periods afforded an opportunity to place in or remove from said ballot box ballots marked in a manner not to reflect the true intention of the voters." However, , this objection is not urged in its exceptions . Moreover , we have held that, absent • allegation,of irregularity, such an objection does not raise a substantial or material issue with respect to - the conduct ,of an -election. ., Fairmont Mills; 'Inc.; 87 NLRB 21. - I ; -r ' 1 : q- Fehr Baking Company, 90 NLRB 2193, footnote 5..• 4 Wiley Mfg. Inc., 93 NLRB 1600. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY :; T 893 not a ground for vacating the election, unless acceptance of the ballot under challenge improperly influenced the results of the election. True, the Employer alleges that acceptance of the ballot led the voters to believe that the Board was backing the Union in its claim that em- ployees replaced during the strike should be rehired, and that the Board was opposing the Employer's refusal to rehire them".' How ever, the Employer presented no evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, to' substantiate this allegation. Consequently, we find that the action of the Board agent in accepting under challenge and impounding the ballot of a replaced economic striker did not improperly influence the results of the election.5 With regard to the use of the Union's officers and committeemen as observers, the Employer contends that they improperly affected the results of the election because they had allegedly participated in mass -picketing, threats of violence, and acts of intimidation during the strike. However, no evidence has been presented to substantiate-this charge. Under all the circumstances, we find that the exceptions do not raise substantial or material issues with regard to the conduct or results of the election. As the tally shows that a majority of all the valid ballots cast were for Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, and that the two chal- lenged ballots were insufficient to affect the results of the election, we shall certify that Union as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. - Certification of Representatives IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the production and maintenance, employees of Huntsville Manufacturing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, including watchmen and firemen, but excluding guards,. clerical employees, time and frequency checkers, employees hired for and employed solely in connection with a specific construc- tion or installation job of limited duration and not a; part of the Em- ployer's' regular production or maintenance operations, executives, supervisors with the rank of second hand or higher, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the pur- poses of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive representative of 5 We further find that there was no breach of the agreement by the Board agent. The parties were informed on the day before the election that, in accordance with the.usual Board practice, the ballot of any replaced striker who appeared at the polls would be accepted under challenge, and that if the Employer could not agree to this procedure it could withdraw its consent to the election . Employer contends that the Union 's assur- ance that no replaced striker would attempt to vote was binding on the Board. This contention is without merit, inasmuch as any such assurance was made - without approval of the Board's- agents, as the Employer admits in a letter written by its attorney to '66 Regional Director on July 10, 1951. ,.,, e 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with re- spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MEMBERS REYNOLDS and STYLEs took no part in the consideration; of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. THE GIRDLER CORPORATION ( DANA PROJECT ) and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 35-RC--51. October 17, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed, *a hearing was held in this case before Robert Volger, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor- Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties agree upon a unit of all office and clerical employees, at the Employer's Dana Project in Indiana; they also agree as to ac number of specific inclusions and exclusions, as set forth in detail in. the unit description below. They disagree only with respect to cer- tain employees loaned to the Atomic Energy Commission, a number of material checkers, and the buyers, all of whom the Employer, un- like the Petitioner, would exclude from the bargaining unit for various reasons. The Employer is engaged in the manufacturing and construction business; at the Dana Project, its only operation here involved, it is, constructing new facilities for the Atomic Energy Commission. This proceeding concerns only the office and clerical employees, who totaled about 300 at the date of the hearing, and of whom all but approxi- mately 30 are located in the two buildings which house the nonmanual workers. Buyers: The Employer urges exclusion of seven buyers on the ground that they are managerial employees. By telephone and letter- 96 NLRB No. 137.