E. J. Kelley Co.

E. J. KELLEY COMPANY 791 quently received from local bargaining representatives requests for advice as to what position to take in contract negotiations. I am, therefore, unable to find on this record a consistent pattern of local autonomy in bargaining.33 Under all these circumstances, and upon the entire record, I would find that whether or not the single-plant unit is appropriate, as con- tended by Continental, the employer-wide unit in which the only union in the case is seeking an election is also appropriate, and I would there- fore direct an election in such a unit. sa It is significant that the majority opinion, while reciting the relevant evidence on this point, fails to make any finding that there is a uniform pattern of autonomous bar- gaining by the local plant managers. E. J. KELLEY COMPANY and JOSEPH ZACHAR , JR., PETITIONER and LOCAL 677, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL. Case No. 1-RD--97. June 17,195P Supplemental Decision and Order Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board on March 10, 1952, an election by secret ballot was held on April 9, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate. Upon completion of the election the parties were duly furnished a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of approximately 73 eligible voters, 29 cast valid ballots, of which none was for, and 29 against, the Union. In addition, there were 73 challenged ballots. On April 14, 1952, the Union filed objections to the conduct of the election, including a statement of its position with regard to the challenged ballots. Pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the challenged ballots and the objections to the conduct of the election. On April 25, 1952, the Regional Director issued his consolidated report on ob- jections and challenged ballots in which he recommended that the Union's objections be overruled, that the challenges to the ballots of 41 employees also be overruled, and that the challenges to 32 of the ballots be sustained. The Union filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di- rector's report. In its objections the Union alleged that the Em- ployer. had interfered with the rights of the employees by transporting voters to and from the polls in company cars and on company time. 1 98 NLRB 486. 99 NLRB No. 119. 792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Regional Director found no instance of a supervisory or man- agerial employee driving or riding in a vehicle to the polling place together with eligible voters, although he found that some of the em- ployees used employer-owned vehicles as a means of transportation. The Union has excepted to this finding, repeating its allegation that managerial employees transported workers to and from the polling place. Assuming the truth of the Union's allegation, in the absence of evidence indicating that officials of the Employer driving the cars coerced or unduly influenced the employees, we find its objection without merit.2 We also find no merit in the Union's objections re- lating to the hiring of new employees "since the order of the election." The Regional Director found that 3 employees were hired by the Employer during the course of normal turnover on January 29, 1952, February 2, 1952, and March 3, 1952, respectively. He also found that a striking employee, whom the Board had found to have been permanently replaced, had requested and been denied employment by the Employer during November 1951. The Union excepts to this latter finding on the ground that this individual's request for and refusal of employment occurred in February 1952, before the hiring of one of the former employees. Apart from the Union's lack of specificity in its original charges and in its elaboration of these charges to the Regional Director, we agree in any event with the Regional Director that this incident in and of itself is not sufficient to raise the inference that the employees were restrained or influenced in voting for or against the Union. Accordingly, the objections are hereby overruled. The Regional Director found that the 41 employees named in Appendix A, attached hereto, who were challenged by the Union, were listed on the Employer's payroll for the eligibility period prescribed by the Board's Decision and Direction of Election and were within the unit established as appropriate by the Board. He recommended therefore that the challenges to the ballots of these em- ployees be overruled and the ballots be opened and counted. The Union excepts to the Regional Director's conclusion on the ground that some of these employees were engaged in construction work. The Regional Director found that the Employer had used some of its own equipment and employees to assist an outside contractor in the removal of fill during the alteration of the Employer's loading platform. Although the Union's exceptions indicate that it disagrees with the Regional Director's estimate of the amount of time involved in the temporary construction work of the employees, we find no merit in the Union's contention that these employees are not eligible to vote. Accordingly, we find these employees to be eligible voters and we shall I Hercules Motor Corporatroon, 73 NLRB 650. E. J. KELLEY COMPANY 793 overrule the challenges to their ballots and order them to be opened and counted. The Regional Director found that the 32 employees listed in Appen- dix B, attached hereto, who were challenged by the Board agent in charge of the election, were employees on strike whom the Board had found were not entitled to reinstatement and were ineligible to vote- The Regional Director therefore recommended that the challenges to these ballots be upheld. The Union excepts to this finding for the' same reasons urged before and duly considered by the Board at the time of issuance of its Decision and Direction of Election. Having previously considered this issue, the Union's contention that these em- ployees are eligible to vote is rejected. We shall order that the chal- lenges to these ballots be sustained. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the challenges to the ballots of the em- ployees listed in Appendix A be, and they hereby are, overruled, and that the challenges to the ballots of the employees listed in Appendix B be, and they hereby are, sustained ; and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the E. J. Kelley Company at its Torrington, Connecticut, place of business, among the employees in the unit set forth in paragraph numbered 4 of the Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on March 10, 1952, the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard 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 Appendix A, and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said challenged ballots. CI1AIR2N1AN HERZOG and ME rBER PETERSON took no part in the con- sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. Bayette, Robert Beaudry, Daniel Beechinor, Clifford Bradley, Ralph Brazee, Harry Corsi, Anthony Croft, Harold Douglas, Helen Dziekan, John Fallon, James Fassio, Mario Appendix A Friend, William Grustas, Charles Hall, William Harris, Henry Hogan, James Kramer, Andrew Laigle, Eugene Lautz, David Maraia, Joseph McIntosh, Charles Misura, John 794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Moser, Henry Murphy, Edward Newkirk, Donald Novajsky, John Ostrander, William Perlotto, Gene Quinn, Michael Relva, Joseph Richards, Paul, Sr. Richards, Paul, Jr. Ammirato, Joseph Bakunis, Vincent Basile, Andrew Bernard, Lorenzo Bianchi, Joseph Britton, George Coolbeth, Gordon Crawford, William Di Giovanni, Daniel Di Giovanni, Donato Douglas, Leroy Folio, Joseph Gallagher, Thomas Gilson, Thomas Hanecek, Joseph Kelley, Gerald Scheidel, Leo Siddell, Charles Strattman, Harold Strattman, Irving Volpe, Edward Whalen, Joseph Zavatky, Bodie Zimmerman, William Zeller, Paul Appendix B Killiany, John Klinck, George Lessard, Edward Macchi, Peter Pagarullo, Joseph Peck, Clifford Richards, William Rulli, Samuel Russo, John Sabolcik, Alfred Sarog, Alexander Schaer, Andrew Vanotti, Joseph Vasko, Alexander Williams, Claudius Williamson, David CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC., SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY and IN- TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS, AFL and INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WOItKERS, AFL, JOINTLY. Case No. 15-CA-350. June 18, 1952 Decision and Order On November 30, 1951, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, then consoli- dated with Cases Nos. 15-RC-400 and 401, finding that the Respond- ents had engaged in conduct which had prevented the holding of a free and uncoerced representation election among their employees conducted by the Board on January 23, 1951, and recommended that 99 NLRB No. 122.