Dixie Chemical Corp.

DIXIE CHEMICAL CORPORATION 195=. continue for 1 year following certification.$ We see no such unusual circumstances in this case. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Re- spondent's last contention. As we have found no merit in the Respondent's contentions in sup- port of its motion for reconsideration of the Board's Decision and Order herein, we shall order that the motion be denied. [The Board denied the motion for reconsideration.] MEMBERS RODGERS and BEESON took no part i n the consideration of the above Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration. 8 See N L R. B. v . Ray Brooks, 204 F 2d 899 ( C A. 9), enforcing 98 NLRB 976 See also The Century Orford Manufacturing Corporation , 47 NLRB 835 , enfd. 140 F 2d 541 (C. A. 2), where it was held that even a substantial turnover among the employees, such as alleged here, was insufficient to rebut this presumption DIXIE, CHEMICAL CORPORATION and UNITED TRANSPORT SERVICE. EMPLOYEES , CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 11-RC-503. July 20,1954. Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on May 12, 1953, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 28,. 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for- the Eleventh Region among the employees in the unit found appropri- ate by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots was fur- nished to the parties. The tally showed that of 33 ballots cast, 11 were for and 3 against the Petitioner, and 19 ballots were challenged. As the challenged' ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director investigated the chal- lenges, and on September 2, 1953, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots. In it he recommended that the Petitioner's challenge to the ballot of Charles Smith be overruled, and that the Employer's challenge to the ballot of A. L. Johnson and the Petitioner's challenges to the ballots of Johnny Jackson, Leroy Freeman, Sam Suggs, Leroy Perry, Franklin Perry, Virgil M. Hill, Mark Chapman, Raymond Perry, James A. Dixon, Sam Cannon, Guy- McLawhorn, E. R. Smith, Ransom Johnson, Arthur A. Sutton, Alfred Locust, and James L. Dixon be sustained. He made no recommenda- tion as to the Petitioner's challenge to the ballot of Sellie Locust. As the ballots of Charles Smith and Sellie Locust could not affect the re- sults of the election, the Regional Director further recommended that the Petitioner be certified. Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions . to the Regional Director's report and requested a hearing. 109 NLRB No. 45. 334811-55-vol 109-14 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD By order dated September 30, 1953, the Board remanded the case to the Regional Director ,for the purpose of conducting a hearing to re- solve the issues raised by the challenges. Pursuant to said order, a hearing was held on October 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1953, before W. G. Stuart Sherman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On March 9, 1954, the hearing officer issued his report, in which he recommended that the challenge to the ballot of Charles Smith be overruled, and that the other challenges be sustained. Because the ballot of Smith could not affect the results of the election, he further recommended that the Petitioner be certified. The Employer filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report and a supporting brief. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the hear- ing officer's report, the Employer's exceptions and brief, and the en- tire record in the case. As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's recommendations with respect to the challenges to the bal- lots of Charles Smith and A. L. Johnson, and as the hearing officer has concurred in these recommendations, the Board hereby overrules the challenge to the ballot of Smith i and sustains the challenge to the ballot of Johnson. The other challenged voters all appear to have been casual employees, who worked only intermittently for the Employer and were not working for it on the eligibility date. For the reasons set forth in the hearing officer's report, the Board sustains the challenges to their ballots. As the majority of the valid votes has been cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify it as the bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate. [The Board certified United Transport Service Employees, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of all production and maintenance employees of Dixie Chemical Corporation at its plant at New Bern, North Carolina, excluding office clerical employees , sales- men, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.] 1 Although no exception was filed to the Regional Director's recommendation with respect to the ballot of Smith, a question was raised at the hearing as to whether he was a super- visor. On the record as a whole, we find, as did the hearing officer, that Smith is not a supervisor. F. W. WOOLWORTH Co. and RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1167, AFL. Case No. 21-CA-1718. July 20,1954 Decision and Order On January 12,1954, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 109 NLRB No. 32.