General Electric Co.

2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tioner has traditionally devoted itself to serving the special interests of such employees. Nor do we believe that the occasional production work performed by these employees militates against their separate representation. In view of the foregoing, we find that the truck- drivers and garage maintenance employees may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire.' Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held in the- follow-ing voting group at the Employer's Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant, ex- cluding all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act : All over-the-road truckdrivers and garage maintenance employees. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented in a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election herein is instructed, in that event, to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, however, a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain part of the existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. e Amerscan Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, APPARATUS SALES DIVISION, SERVICE SHOPS DEPARTMENT and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRI- CAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 73, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 19-RC-1431. July 2,1954 Decision and Certification of Representatives On March 19, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region among employees in the agreed appropriate unit. Following the election, the Regional Director served on the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that, of approximately 8 eligible voters, 8 cast ballots in the election, of which 4 ballots were cast for the Petitioner; 3 ballots were cast for International Union of Electrical, Radio and, Machine Workers of America, CIO, the Intervenor herein; and, ] 109 NLRB No. 4 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 3 ballot was challenged. Because the challenged ballot was determina- tive of the results of the election, the Regional Director investigated the' challenge, and on April 15, 1954, issued his report on challenged ballot, in which he recommended that the challenge to the ballot be sustained and that the Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargain- ing representative for employees in the appropriate unit. On April 23, 1954, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the challenge, the report on challenged ballot, and the Employer's exception thereto. On the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings of fact : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees of General Electric Company, Apparatus Sales Division, Service Shops Department, employed at its shop at South 155 Sherman Street, Spokane, Wash- ington, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. As noted above, the tally of ballots shows that, of 8 ballots cast, 4 were cast for the Petitioner, 3 for the Intervenor, and 1 ballot was challenged. The ballot of Richard B. Foster was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that he is a supervisor. The Regional Director's in- vestigation shows that Clarence L. Roberts, superintendent, is in general charge of the office and shop ; that during his absence from the plant on numerous occasions, estimated at about 20 percent of the time, Foster is in charge; that Foster assigns jobs to other shop employees, both when Roberts is absent and also when he is at the shop; and that Foster is held responsible for the standard of work in the jobs. Further, Foster sits in when Roberts is interviewing a job applicant, questions the applicant with respect to his qualifica- tions, and gives his opinions as to the applicant's fitness for the job. One reason given for Foster's presence during such interviews is that Foster is in training for a foreman's job. Because Foster assigns work to shop employees, checks on the quality of the work turned out, and, in the absence of Roberts during 334811-55-vol. 109-2 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a substantial portion of the time, substitutes for him, the Regional Director concluded that Foster was a supervisor and recommended that the challenge to his ballot be sustained. The Employer's excep- tions to the Regional Director's recommendation do not go to the factual situation but rather to his conclusion as to Foster's status. Admittedly, Foster is a skilled manual worker, devoting the major part of his workday to work which he performs. His shop responsi- bilities, however, clearly indicate that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act." We therefore exclude him from the unit as a supervisor, and sustain the challenge to his ballot. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast, we certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of all employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 73, AFL, as the designated collective- bargaining representative of the employees of General Electric Com- pany, Apparatus Sales Division, Service Shops Department, at its shop at South 155 Sherman Street, Spokane, Washington, in the unit found appropriate above.] I Robert C. Matlock d/b/a Owensboro Plating Company, 103 NLRB 993 , at 994. REPCAL BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and REPCAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION , PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-3465. July 6, 1954 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, executed February 25, 1954, an election by secret ballot was conducted on March 9, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region. Upon conclusion of the ballot- ing, a tally of ballots was issued and served upon the parties. The tally shows that of the approximately 263 eligible voters, 222 voted, with 1 being challenged. There were 94 votes cast for UAW-CIO, 52 for Local 700, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Work- ers, Independent, 50 for Repeal Employees Association, Independent, 23 for Metal Trades Council, AFL, and 2 votes cast against the par- ticipating labor organizations. The Repeal Employees Association filed timely objections to the conduct of the election. Thereafter, on March 25, 1954, following an investigation, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections and supplemental report on ob- jections, in which he recommended that the objections be sustained. The UAW-CIO filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. 109 NLRB No. 10.