The Hitchcock Corp.

THE HITCHCOCK CORPORATION 477 rants a departure from this rule, we shall, accordingly, exclude office clerical employees from the unit. In connection with the Petitioner's request that employees in any future plants erected by the Employer in the Trenton area be in- cluded in the unit, we note that no evidence was adduced at the hear- ing with respect to any prospective company expansion. However, even if the Employer was anticipating new locations in the Trenton area, we are of the opinion that the propriety of including in the unit employees of any such plants should be decided in future proceedings for clarification of the certification or redetermination of the appro- priate unit. 10 We shall , therefore, confine the unit here found ap- propriate to the Employer's present Trenton, New Jersey, plant. We find that all production, maintenance, and warehouse employees of the Employer at its Trenton works, 400 Pennington Avenue, Tren- ton, New Jersey, including group leaders, the lead wire clerks, and the coil clerk, but excluding all office clerical employees, technical em- ployees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 10 See The Conner Lambe) and Land Company , 90 NLRB 283. TIIE HITCHCOCK CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORK- ERS UNION OF AMERICA , A. F. OF L., PETITIONER . Case No . 11-RC- 605. October 25, 1954 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on July 6, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 23, 1954, under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region among the employees in the appropriate unit at the Employer's operations in Murphy, North Carolina. Upon the con- clusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of bal- lots, which showed that, of approximately 40 eligible voters, 26 voted for, and 7 against, the Petitioner and 23 ballots were challenged. The number of challenged ballots was sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Employer filed timely objections to conduct of the Petitioner allegedly affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the 1 Not reported in punted volumes of Board Decisions and Orders 110 NLRB No. 85. 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on September 3, 1954, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenges and objections, in which he recom- mended that the Employer's objections be overruled. The Employer filed timely exceptions to this recommendation.' The Employer's objections alleged, inter alia, that the Petitioner interfered with the election by causing 23 former employees of the Employer to vote challenged ballots, although the Petitioner knew that they were not eligible to vote. The Regional Director found that the Petitioner urged former em- ployees of the Employer to vote and that of the 23 challenged voters 21 were ineligible, chiefly because they had been laid off or discharged before the eligibility date. Finding further that there was no dis- order at the polls or evidence of threats, the Regional Director recom- mended that the objections be overruled. In its exceptions the Em- ployer contends that eligible voters were coerced by the action of the Petitioner in causing 22 known ineligibles to appear at the polls, stand in line during the entire voting period, and submit to challenge and interrogation in the presence of the other voters. While we do not condone the action of the Petitioner if, as alleged, it caused persons to vote who were known by it to be ineligible, we do not believe that the mere fact that a disproportionate number of ineligible persons voted under challenge in the presence of other voters warrants the inference that such other voters were thereby coerced to vote for the Petitioner. Accordingly, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the Employer's exceptions raise no substantial or material issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election, and we therefore overrule them. Because the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner. as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified International Chemical Workers Union of America, A. F. of L., as the designated collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the De- cision and Direction of Election.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. s with respect to the challenges the Regional Director recommended that 21 be sustained, that 1 be overruled, and that action on another be deferred . No exceptions were taken to this recommendation and we hereby adopt it. As the 2 ballots with respect to which chal- lenges were not sustained cannot, however , affect the result of the election , no further action will be taken with respect to them.