West Texas Utilities Co.

WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY 157 We shall direct elections among the following voting groups of employees at the Employer's New York, New York, establishment : (a) All new and used car salesmen, excluding office clerical employees 4 and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All shop employees including mechanics, greasers, porters, polishers, washers, parts men,5 and utility men, but excluding guards, professional employees, the service manager," all other supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and all employees in voting group (a) above. If a majority of the employees in voting group (b) cast their ballots for the CIO, they will constitute a separate appropriate unit. Similarly, if a majority of employees in either group (a) or (b) cast their ballots -for the AFL, the employees in that voting group will constitute a separate appropriate unit, provided, however, if a majority of employees in each group cast their ballots for the AFL, they- together will constitute a single appropriate unit. The Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate of representatives in accord with the foregoing. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 The AFL would include office clerical employees in the broad unit . The inclusion of office clericals in units with production and maintenance employees , such as the service and repair-shop employees herein, is contrary to Board policy . Accordingly, although office clericals might appropriately be included in a separate unit with salesmen , they are ex- cluded from the salesmen 's voting group here because the over-all production and main- tenance unit , and not a salesmen's unit, is the basic one requested by the AFL. 5 Sam Leff, who works as a part-time partsman , is the son of the Employer. He is excluded from the unit because of his close relationship to the Employer. 6 The record shows that the service manager can effectively recommend the hiring and discharge of employees . He is therefore excluded from the unit as a supervisor. WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELiicnuoAL WORKERS, LOCALS Nos. 898, 920, AND 1044, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-812. February 19, 1952 Supplemental Decision, Direction, and Order - On December 19 and 20, 1951, pursuant to a decision of the Board,' an election was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which shows that, of the 152 votes cast, 59 valid ballots were cast for the Petitioner, 47 valid ballots were cast against the Petitioner, 45 ballots were challenged, and 1 void ballot was cast. 1 97 NLRB 184. 98 NLRB No. 29. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On December 28, 1951, the Employer filed objections to conduct- affecting the result of the election and to the conduct of the election. On January 8, 1952, the Regional Director issued his report on objections to election and challenged ballots, and on January 25, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions thereto. The Petitioner has filed no exceptions to the report. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board 2 makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT The Challenged Voters In his report, the Regional Director sustained the challenges to the ballots of the employees listed in Schedule A. Because neither party has excepted thereto, we hereby adopt these recommendations, and will sustain the challenges to those ballots. The Regional Direc- tor overruled the challenges to the ballots of the employees listed in Schedule B, and as neither party has excepted thereto, we hereby adopt these recommendations, and we will order that the challenges to these ballots be overruled, and that they be opened and counted. The Employer excepts, however, to the Regional Director' s recom- mendations with respect to the employees listed in Schedule C. As substantial issues of fact are raised with respect to these employees, we shall direct that a hearing be held for the purpose of obtaining evidence with respect to the duties of these employees, and we shall further direct that the hearing officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing prepare and cause to be-.served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the said challenged ballots.3 The Appropriate Unit The Regional Director's Report and the Employer's exceptions thereto indicate a lack of clarity in our Decision and Direction of Election herein with respect to the inclusion in the unit of persons em- ployed in operating or maintaining Diesel engines. To resolve any doubts on this point, we will clarify the unit finding in our Decision which was intended to include in the appropriate unit all employees, however designated, who devote any part of their time to the operation or maintenance of the Employer's Diesel engines. However, only 2 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 Ito a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. 'Pending a resolution of the challenged ballots which are in dispute , we shall not pass upon the objections to the election, the Regional Director 's report thereon , and the Employer's exceptions thereto. WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY 159 such of those employees as regularly devote a substantial part of their time to the maintenance or operation of Diesel engines will be deemed to have been eligible to vote in the election conducted herein.4 We accordingly find that the following unit is appropriate for collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All power plant employees in the Employer's production depart- ment, including all employees who operate or maintain Diesel engines, but excluding office clerical employees, shift engineers, guards, watch- men, professional employees, and supervisors. Direction As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of the employees listed in Schedule B. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this proceeding be, and it hereby is, re- manded to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the issues raised by the Employer's exceptions with respect to the challenged ballots of the employees listed in Schedule C, and that the said Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue early notice thereof ; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the said challenged ballots. Within 10 days of receipt of such report, any party may file with the Board in Washing- ton, D. C., an original and six copies of exceptions thereto. Imme- diately upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon the other party, and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendations of the hearing officer. Schedule A C. W. Phillips Ernest M. Wilson, Jr. Tom Ferguson Layton H. Holt Jim Sikes Lewis Jackson L. S. Hollowell Otis Finch Grady Starkey E. M. Murphy L. R. Hallmark W. H. Thornburg 4 The Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384. 160 DECISIONS W. E. Rule, Jr. Lucians Rodriquez W. A. Cates Lewis R. Tucker V. L. Smith L. M. Smith Miguel Franco James Price F. H. Welling H. L. Jones Eugene Allison OF NATIONAL LABOR Schedule B V. L. Aldermann Schedule C W. B. McCreary Jose Gonzales C. L. Morrow Acie Henderson C. L. Reavis M. C. Powell R. L. Walker M. C. Bell J. A. Bettis V. H. Lindsey RELATIONS BOARD A. E. Herchman Francisco Valenzuela T. B. Henderson J. R. Urista W. E. Rule John Mullins Frank Drummond N. F. Roberson F. F. Coughran A. M. Coplen J. I. Chappell CONNECTICUT CHEMICAL RESEARCH CORPORATION and KATHERINE CLEVELAND, GEORGIA DECLEMENT, ANTOINETPE GALLANT, ELEANOR JASTER, ANTHONY KRAFTCHICK, MARY KRAFTCHICK, MORRIS KRONISH, ROSE KUI3IC, CORA LALUNA, MARY PANICCIA, ROSE PETRO, DOROTHY PRIMROSE, MILDRED SHEMETH, DORA VAN GELDER, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. Case No. 2-CA-590. February 20, 1952 Decision and Order On August 13, 1951, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief. The Respondent also requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied, as the record, exceptions, and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter- :'The Respondent, in its brief, contends that prejudicial error and denial of due process resulted from the Trial Examiner's refusal to compel the General Counsel to produce affidavits of Edward Helfer, a former official of the Respondent who testified for the 98 NLRB No. 33.