Reade Manufacturing Co., Inc.

READS. MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 87 employees who joined earlier. This announcement was a correct statement of the then effective bylaws of the Petitioner. The Regional Director found nothing improper in this conduct. We agree with his conclusion 5 We also note that the Employer did not specifically except to this portion of the Regional Director's report. For the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with the Regional Director's recommendations, we hereby overrule the objections to the results of the election. As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. Certification of Representative IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Local No. 328, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, A. F. of L., has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of J. J. Newberry Company, Iron River, Michigan, in the appropriate unit, described in the stipulation for certification upon consent election herein, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all the em- ployees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other condi- tions of employment. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. 5 Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co., 93 NLRB 1459 READE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL 56, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-14,59. July 9, 1952 Decision and Direction Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election by the Employer and the Petitioner, an election by secret ballot was conducted on March 21, 1952, under the direction of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region. At the close of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of the 19 votes cast, 8 were for and 6 against the Petitioner, and 5 were challenged.. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number 100 NLRB No. 4. 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, thereafter, on April 28, 1952, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots. In this report, the Regional Director recommended that the challenges to the ballots cast by Nils Erikson and Percy Jackson be overruled, and that the challenges to the ballots cast by Joseph Molina, William Thoennes, and Clifford Reid be sustained. The Employer thereafter filed exceptions to the Regional Director's determination with re- spect to the ballots cast by Erikson and Reid. 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, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged- in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. . 4. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Lakehurst, New Jersey, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The challenged ballots : With respect to Erikson's ballot, the Regional Director's investiga- tion discloses that on February 18, 1952, and for some period of time prior thereto, including the payroll period ending February 7, 1952, which the parties agreed should be used to determine the eligibility of employees to vote in the election, Erikson was actively engaged as an employee of the Employer. On about February 18, after the New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry had notified the Employer that it would have to terminate Erikson's employment because Erikson was not 18 years old, the legal age for employment provided by State law, Erikson was laid off. On March 4, 1952, the date of his eighteenth birthday, Erikson was rehired., The Regional Director's recommendation that the challenge to Erikson's ballot be overruled rests on the finding that Erikson was in a temporary layoff status between February 18 and March 4. The Employer excepts to this finding. In addition, it argues that Erikson 1 As noted above, the election in this case took place on March 21, 1952. READER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 89 was not entitled to vote because he was not a "legal" employee on the eligibility date, in that he was not 18 years old on the eligibility date and New Jersey -law bars the employment of anybody under 18 years of age in his kind of work.2 We agree with the Regional Director that Erikson was entitled to vote in the election. Unlike the Regional Director, however, we find it unnecessary to decide the precise status of Erikson during the period from February 18 to March 4. For, as the Board has frequently said, the essential element in determining an, employee's eligibility to vote is his status on the eligibility payroll date and on the date of the election.-3 And here, it appears that Erikson was working for the Employer on each of these critical dates. On the basis of the foregoing, therefore, we are satisfied that Erikson was entitled to vote in the election. It is, of course, immaterial in this connection that Erikson's employment by the Employer before February 18 may have been proscribed by New Jersey law .4 Ac- cordingly, we adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that Erikson's ballot be opened and counted. As to the ballot cast by Reid, the Regional Director's report states, without challenge by the Employer, that Reid is engaged in produc- tion, maintenance, shipping, and driving work. He assigns work to employees and responsibly directs them in this work. He is known to these employees as the superintendent, a title appearing after his name on written, instructions issued to them by him. On Friday afternoons, and on Saturdays when the plant is in operation, as it has been during the majority of the Saturdays during the past year, Reid substitutes for, and apparently exercises the supervisory authority of, the plant manager, who is absent from the plant on these occasions. It is clear from the foregoing, and we find, contrary to the Employer, that Reid is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. As such, he was ineligible to vote in the election. We therefore adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that Reid's ballot not be opened or counted. As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's other findings and recommendations, we hereby adopt them. Accordingly, we find that Percy Jackson was entitled to vote in the election, and adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that his ballot be opened and counted. We further find that Joseph Molina and William Thoennes were ineligible to vote in the election, and adopt the Regional Direc- tor's recommendation that their ballots not be opened or counted. 2 According to the -Employer, Erikson falsified his age at the time of his original hiring. 8 Hill Heath, Inc., 89 NLRB 1555; Reidbord Bros. Co., 99 NLRB 127. 4 Deep Rock Inc., 83 NLRB 894. 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Direction As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Reade Manufacturing Com- pany, Inc., Lakehurst, New Jersey, it is hereby directed that the Re- gional Director for the Fourth Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the challenged ballots of Nils Erikson and Percy Jackson, and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the, count of these challenged ballots. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1 and PEGASUS CLERICAL ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2621. July 9, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leo J. Halloran, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire. record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer .3 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. The Intervenor contends that a contract between it and the Em- ployer is a bar to this proceeding. This contract was executed on January 12, 1950, for a term of 1 year, and from year to year there- after, in the absence of 60 days' notice to terminate, modify, amend, or supplement. In the absence of such notice, the contract was auto- matically renewed in January 1951. On November 7 and 10, 1951, the Intervenor notified the Employer of its desire to modify, amend, I The caption is amended to reflect the correct name of the Employer. 2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss the, peti- tion herein . For the reasons set forth hereinafter, this motion is hereby denied. 8 New England Petroleum Labor Organization , herein called the Intervenor , was per- mitted to intervene on the basis of a claimed contractual interest. 100 NLRB No. 22.