United States Steel Corp.

206 DECISION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the former strikers, not recalled, have been permanently replaced or that their jobs have been abolished. Accordingly, we find that the former strikers who have not been reemployed are not entitled to reinstatement and are ineligible to vote in the election.5 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 5 E. J. Kelley Company, et al., 98 NLRB 486, 488. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP DIVISION OF UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-2039. April 9 1954 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFI- CATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board herein on October 9, 1953,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted, between October 30 and November 10, 1953, under the supervision and direction of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 1,337 eligible voters, 1,309 cast ballots, of which 700 were for the Petitioner, 92 were for the Inter- venor , 2 501 were against both participating labor organiza- tions, 5 were void , and 11 were challenged. On November 16, 1953, the Intervenor filed timely objections to the conduct of the election. The Regional Director investi- gated the objections and issued a report on objections, on January 29, 1954, recommending that the objections be over- ruled.3 On February 23, 1954, the Intervenor filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the Intervenor ' s exceptions , and the entire record in the case, and finds that the objections do not raise substantial or ma- terial issues with respect to the election. Accordingly, they are hereby overruled. 1106 NLRB 1248. 2 Seafarers' International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL. 3On February 1, 1954, the Intervenor requested the Regional Director to answer certain interrogatories and to request the Employer to answer certain other interrogatories. On February 15, 1954, the Regional Director declined these requests, and on February 19,1 1954, the Intervenor appealed to the Board from the Regional Director's ruling. The appeal is hereby denied, as the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended, do not provide for the use of interrogatories in a proceeding of this nature. 108 NLRB No. 43. KOHLER CO. 207 As we have overruled the Intervenor ' s objections, and as the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the repre- sentative of the employees involved. [The Board certified United Steelworkers of America, CIO, as the designated collective -bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.] Members Murdock and Beeson took no part in the consider- ation of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Repre sentatives. KOHLER CO. and EDWARD ERTEL KOHLER CO. and VERNON L. BICHLER, ET AL. KOHLER CO. and KOHLER WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, An Independent Labor Organization (now affiliated with INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (KWA UAW-CIO, LOCAL 833)). Cases Nos . 13-CA-960, 13- CA-1114, and 13 -CA-1115. April 12, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER On October 20, 1953, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceedings, find- ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it ceas.e and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint , and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Parties filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Exam- iner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con- sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases and hereby adopts the find- 'The Respondent and Charging Parties also requested oral argument. These requests are denied as the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. 108 NLRB No. 41.