Le Roi Co.

LE ROI COMPANY 309 Having duly considered the matter , the Board2 makes the following disposition of the challenged ballots , the void ballot, and the objections to the election: (1) As no exceptions were filed to the hearing officer's report , we adopt his recommendation for overruling the challenges to all seven challenged ballots. (2) During the counting of the ballots , the Board agent in charge of the election ruled as void a ballot with an "X" and the letters "NO" in the "neither " box. The Board agent believed that the markings constituted an identifying mark. The Regional Director recommended upholding the Board agent's action . The Employer excepted to the Regional Direc- tor's recommendation . In previous cases, the Board has ruled valid ballots marked like that of the voided ballot in this case.3 Accordingly , we overrule the Regional Director and shall direct that the voided ballot be counted as a "neither" vote. (3) No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's recommendation for overruling the Intervenor ' s objections to the election . In accordance with his recommendation, they are hereby overruled. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count these ballots and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the count of these ballots, and the void ballot counted as a "neither" vote.] 2 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Peter - son] 3Marshall, Meadows & Stewart, Inc., 59 NLRB 1286; Van Raalte Company, Inc., 49 NLRB 985 LE ROI COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-2211. June 2, 1953 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On January 14, 1953, pursuant to the Board's Supplemental Decision and Orders and a Direction of Second Elections dated December 15, 1952, elections were conducted, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director, by secret ballot, among the employees of the Employer in the voting groups found appropriate in the Board's Decision and Direc- tion of Elections of February 18, 1952,2 to determine whether 1 101 NLRB 55. 2 98 NLRB No 24 105 NLRB No. 41. 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or not the said employees desired the Petitioner to represent them in a single unit or in separate units. Upon the conclusion of the elections, tallies of ballots were issued and served upon the parties hereto in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tallies show that of approximately 154 eligible voters in voting group (a),3 63 voted for the Petitioner, 90 voted against it, and 1 ballot was challenged; that of the 5 eligible voters in voting group (b),4 no ballots were cast in favor of proposition 11 or proposition 2,6 whereas 2 ballots were cast against both propositions. On January 16, 1953, the Petitioner filed objections to the elections. On April 8, 1953, after investigating the objections, the Regional Director issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that Objection No. 2 be sustained, that the elections be set aside and new elections be directed, and that the remaining objections be overruled. Because the challenges were not sufficient in number to affect the elections, the Regional Director made no report concerning the challenges. The Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board' has considered the Regional Director's report on objections and the exceptions filed by the Employer and, like the Regional Director, finds merit in the Petitioner's Objection No. 2, which alleged that the Employer interfered with the free choice of the employees voting in the elections by granting wage increases immediately prior to the date of the elections. The Regional Director's findings, insofar as here pertinent , are as follows: On May 16, 1952, a petition for an increase in wages for the production employees was filed with the Wage Stabilization Board. On June 3, 1952, the Employer filed a petition with the Wage Stabilization Board for an increase in wages for its office employees. In a letter dated December 22, 1953, the Wage Stabilization Board approved both of these petitions, effective December 19, 1952. The increases to both the office and the production employees amounted to approximately 4 cents per hour and both increases were retroactive to October 19, 1952. The increase for the office employees was announced by the Employer on January 9, 1953, and was reflected in the 3 This voting group was composed of all office clerical employees at the Employer's Mil- waukee, Wisconsin, plant, excluding all employees listed in Schedule A attached to the Decision and Direction of Elections, nurses, production and maintenance employees, methods engineers, executives, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4This group was composed of all nurses in the medical department at the Employer's Mil- waukee, Wisconsin, plant, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. SThis proposition was to determine whether the employees in voting group (b) desired to be included in a unit with the employees of voting group (a) for the purposes of collective bargain- ing 6 This proposition was to determine whether the employees in voting group (b) desired to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the Petitioner. 7 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 [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peter- son]. CHARLES E. DABOLL, JR. 311 paycheck to the office employees of the same date. The Regional Director concluded that the timing of the increase was designed by the Employer to influence the outcome of the elections. The Regional Director therefore recommended that the elections be set aside. The Employer contends that the increase was granted on January 9 because it was the first regular payday after it received notice of approval of the increase by the Wage Stabilization Board. However, nothing in the Wage Stabilization Board ruling required that the Employer give the increase on that date, or precluded the Employer from waiting a few more days until after the election before granting the in- crease. In granting the increase despite the imminence of the elections, the Employer repeated essentially the same conduct which impelled the Board to set aside the prior elections of March 13, 1952. Those elections were set aside because the Employer only 10 days before the elections granted an increase to about one-third of the eligible voters. The Board said: "No reason appears why the Employer could not have postponed this March 3, 1952, increase until after the election. In view of the foregoing, we find that the purpose of the grant- ing of this increase in wages, particularly in view of its timing, was to influence the results of the elections; and that the granting of such increase interfered with the elections." " For similar reasons, we find that the January 9, 1953, increase interfered with the elections of January 14. We, accordingly, sustain Objection No. 2 filed by the Petitioner to the conduct of the elections. We shall, therefore, set aside the elections of January 14, 1953, and direct new elections at such time as the Regional Director advises the Board that the circumstances permit a free choice among the employees herein concerned. [The Board set aside the elections.] e 101 NLRB 55. CHARLES E. DABOLL, JR. and CLARENCE B. SELLS OPERATIVE PLASTERERS ' AND CEMENT MASONS' INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , AFL, LOCAL UNION 797 and CLARENCE B. SELLS. Cases Nos. 20 - CA-707 and 20-CB - 244. June 3, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 31, 1953, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices , and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report 105 NLRB No. 44. 291555 0 - 54 - 21