Douglas Eaton Manufacturing Co.

192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. RAY MITCHELL, MORTON R. COHEN, MILTON A. COHEN, ARTHUR COHEN, LIBBY COHEN, MYRON APPLEBAUM AND SAMUEL A. COHEN, D/B/A DOUGLAS EATON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1 and UPHOL- STERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 35-RC-909. September 30, 1954 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 Harry Berns, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 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 named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find in substantial agreement with the parties that the fol- lowing employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Eaton, Indiana, including shipping and receiving clerks, and in- spector, but including office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Although the parties agreed to the exclusion of over-the-road drivers, we are making no finding concerning their unit placement as the Employer does not have this, classification on its payroll. The Intervenor would exclude as a supervisor, William White, who works along with the employees in the upholstery department. In the ab- sence of the regular department head, White is in charge of the department about 2 percent of his time and may make employee assignments but he has no authority to hire or discharge employees or to recommend such action. In view of the foregoing, we shall include White in the unit.3 5. The Intervenor contended at the hearing that about 12 employees laid off in 1952 should be eligible to vote. The Employer asserted that these employees had little prospect of reemployment because of a change in its upholstery operations. A very long time has elapsed 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 2 Local No. 122, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest. 3 Puerto Rico Glass Corporation, 101 NLRB 1347, 1348 110 NLRB No. 26. REPCAL BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 193 since the layoff of these employees, and the record before us affords no basis supporting the Petitioner's assertion that all these employees now have a reasonable expectancy of future employment. Adminis- tratively, we have been advised that 2 of those former employees have recently been rehired and that 2 others may later be recalled. Even assuming that these informally reported facts, upon which none of the parties have had opportunity to comment, were properly estab- lished, they do not disclose any real expectancy of reemployment for the remaining employees who were laid off 2 years ago. Accordingly, we find that the laid-off employees are not eligible to vote in the election unless they have been recalled and satisfy our customary eligibility requirement .4 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. +Member Murdock believes , contrary to any suggestion or implication of the majority that it may be improper to do so, that the Board is clearly entitled to utilize herein infor- mation of the character administratively supplied by the Regional Director . He further points out that the issue is not as the majority suggests whether this information is sufficient to show that "all " of the laid-off employees have a reasonable expectancy of future employment . It is sufficient that the information relating to the rehiring of these employees indicates that at least some of the laid-off employees have a reasonable expect- ancy of employment . Accordingly, as the Board cannot now tell which of them have such expectancy , Member Murdock would permit all laid -off employees to vote subject to challenge. REPCAL BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and REPCAL EMPLOYEES. ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-3465. October 4, 1954 Supplemental Decision and Order On July 23,1954, pursuant to the Board's Decision, Order and Direc- tion of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted, under the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region. Upon conclusion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was issued and served upon the parties. The tally showed that, of approximately 275 eligible voters, 243 voted, with 1 being chal- lenged. There were 88 votes cast for UAW-CIO, 76 for Local 700,_ International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Independent,. (here called the Smelter Workers), 61 for Repeal Employees Associa- tion, Independent, 10 for Metal Trades Council, AFL, and 7 votes cast against the labor organizations. The Repeal Employees Association and the Metal Trades Council, AFL, filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the 1 109 NLRB 4. 110 NLRB No. 24. 338207-55-vol. 110 14