Indianapolis Wire Bound Box Co.

SECURITY ENTERPRISES 605 excluding office clerical employees , diesinkers , trim makers, diesinking and duplicating machine operators , indentured apprentices , guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. Contrary to the contentions of 104 UE and 106 UE, we do not find that the designation of the UAW - CIO locals on the ballot as 104 UAW and 106 UAW will create confusion in the minds of the voters as to the identity of the participants in the election . Accordingly , we grant the request of the Pe- titioners that their names appear on the ballots as in the caption herein. 12 The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion by 104 UE and 106 UE that any election directed herein should be deferred until a representative complement of employees is employed at the East Moline Works . The record indicates that at the time of the hearing , because of recent layoffs, the number of production and maintenance employees . was about one-third of the number employed at the time of the disaffilia- tion actions described above . The Employer stated that it did not anticipate any substantial change in the number of em- ployees in the immediate future . Accordingly , we see no reasons to defer the election herein directed. Furthermore, as stated in the direction of elections , those employees who have been only temporarily laid off , will be eligible to vote. The motion is therefore denied. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 12 Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236 at 1239. Participation of 104 UE and 106 UE in the elections directed herein is conditioned upon their compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. SECURITY ENTERPRISES DIVISION OF INDIANAPOLIS WIRE BOUND BOX COMPANY and LOCAL 135, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-944 . April 29, 1954 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION On January 8, 1954, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board in the above -entitled case,' an election was conducted, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director , among truckdrivers at the Employer's Indianapolis , Indiana, plywood manufacturing and sales plant in the unit found appropriate . Following the election , the Re- gional Director issued and served upon the parties a tally of ballots , which shows that , of the 7 ballots cast in the election, I Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 108 NLRB No. 97. 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 ballots were cast for the Petitioner , 1 ballot was cast against the Petitioner , and 4 ballots were challenged. The challenged ballots are sufficient to affect the outcome of the election. On January 15, 1954, the Employer filed timely objections to the election . On February 9, 1954, after investigation, the Regional Director issued and served on the parties his report on objections to election , challenged ballots , and recommenda- tion. On March 1, 1954 , the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director' s report. The Board has reviewed the Employer ' s objections to the election , the Regional Director' s report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds as follows: (1) The Employer' s objections : the irregularly marked ballots The election ballots instruct the voters to "Mark an 'X' in the square of your choice." One ballot cast for the Petitioner contains a checkmark in the "Yes" square ; and the other ballot contains in the "Yes" square both an "X" and a checkmark, the one superimposed in the other. During the counting of the ballots , the Board agent in charge of the election ruled that both these ballots were valid. The Employer objected to his ruling with respect to one ballot. The Regional Director considered the validity of both ballots because they contained similar irregular markings . The Regional Direc- tor found ( 1) that markings on these ballots were not inherently such as to disclose the identity of the voters ; (2) that they do not constitute so significant a departure from the usual manner in marking ballots as to destroy the secrecy of identity of the voters ; and (3 ) that they do not indicate that they were made deliberately to identify the voters . 2 He, therefore , found that both ballots were valid and were properly countedandhe rec- ommended that the Board overrule the objection. The Employer excepted to his findings . We have examined the ballots and we agree with , and adopt , the Regional Director ' s findings as to them. We therefore overrule the Employer' s objections and exceptions. (2) The challenged ballots The Regional Director found that William Cole and Emil Kinney , whose ballots were challenged at the election, were not eligible voters , and recommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained. The Employer takes no exception 2 Luna Iron & Steel Company, 97 NLRB 909 at page 913. SECURITY ENTERPRISES 607 to his finding. We therefore sustain the challenges to the bal- lots of Cole and Kinney. The Regional Director found that Charles Balke and Ewing Spencer, whose ballots were challenged in the election, were eligible voters and recommended that the challenges to their ballots be overruled. No exceptions were taken as to his find- ing with respect to Spencer, and we find that Spencer is an eli- gible voter. The Employer takes exception to finding with respect to Balke. The Employer contends that Balke is a supervisor and there- fore ineligible to vote. The Regional Director finds that Balke, classified as a truckdriver, spends almost his entire time driv- ing a truck and that a substantial portion of this time is spent outside Indianapolis. Balke's rate of pay is between that of the other truckdrivers and that of the shipping clerk and truck foreman, who was specifically excluded from the unit as a supervisor. Balke, a longtime employee of the Employer, occupied the position of shipping clerk and truck foreman approximately from September 1952 to June 1953, when he became a truck- driver. It does not appear that as of the date of the election or the eligibility period Balke possessed or exercised any supervisory authority.3 Balke is an experienced employee- without the power responsibly to direct others. Under these circumstances, we find, as did the Regional Director, that Balke is not a supervisor as defined in the Act and that he is therefore eligible to vote in the election. Because the counting of the ballots of Spencer and Balke may be determinative of the results of the election, we shall direct that they be opened and counted. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Ninth Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and counttheballots of Charles Balke and Ewing Spencer and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots. I Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction. 31n the absence of the shipping clerk and truck foreman, Balke answers the telephone and occasionally prepares bills of lading.