Rockwell Valves, Inc.

242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees and truckdrivers at its Waco, Texas, poultry dressing plant, excluding managerial, office clerical, and plant clerical employees, salesmen, driver-salesmen, field men, operating students, supervisors, and guards as defined in the Act.4 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 The parties agreed that this unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. ROCKWELL VALVES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1550. January 19, 1955 Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification upon a Consent Elec- tion" and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 5, 1954, in the above-entitled proceeding under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region. Thereafter the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of 109 valid ballots counted 55 were cast for International Association of Machin- ists, AFL, hereinafter called the Petitioner; 10 were cast for United Steelworkers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor; and 44 were cast against both participating labor organizations. There were no challenged ballots and one void ballot. On November 10, 1954, the Employer timely filed its objections to certification. On November 22, 1954, after an investigation of these objections, the Regional Director issued and duly served on the par- ties his report on objections in which he recommended that the Board overrule the objections. Thereafter, on November 30, 1954, the Em- ployer filed its exceptions to report on objections and a supporting brief. The Board, having considered the objections to the certification, the report on objections, the exceptions thereto and the brief, and the en- tire record in the case, makes the following findings : 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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 111 NLRB No. 40. ROCKWELL VALVES, INC. 243 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees employed by Rockwell Valves, Inc., at its Sulphur Springs, Texas, plant, including machinists, machine operators, assemblers, tool crib attendants, shop clerks and janitors, and trainees working within the bargaining unit, but excluding all other employees, including office personnel, executives, technical employees, engineers, metallurgists, laboratory assistants, time-study and methods engineers, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors within the meaning of the Act. 5. The Employer contends that a runoff election should be held be- cause the ballot tallied as void should have been counted as a vote cast against both participating labor organizations, and that therefore there was no clear majority of votes cast by eligible participants in favor of anyone of the three choices. The disputed ballot was marked with an "X" opposite both the names of the Petitioner and the Intervenor. The Employer does not deny that a ballot so marked is invalid as showing ambiguous intent when viewed in the light of the formal instructions on the notices of elec- tion. However, the Employer maintains that under prevailing custom and election rules in Hopkins County, Texas, where the election took place, the ballot is valid and clearly shows the voter's intent to scratch out 2 of the 3 choices as a means of selecting the third. In its objec- tions to certification and its exceptions to report on objections, the Em- ployer offered evidence as to prevailing custom and election rules in the county. We find that the Employer's objections are without merit. As the Regional Director points out in his report on objections, the instruc- tions on the standard notice of election, duly posted in the plant 4 days before the election, and on the official secret ballot, were ex- plicit and clear. Moreover, the fact that there were no other void or challenged ballots among the 110 participating employees is per- suasive evidence of the absence of any general confusion over the proper manner of marking the ballots. We conclude that the prima facie ambiguity of the intent of the voter who marked the ballot in question under our election rules is not dispelled by the evidence offered by the Employer as to voting procedures in local political elections in Hopkins County, and that the purposes of the Act would not be effectuated by ordering a run- off election under these circumstances.' Accordingly, following the Regional Director's recommendation, we find that there were only 109 valid ballots and that the Petitioner's 55 votes constitute a ma- i Cf N. L. R. B. v. Whitinsvalle Spinning Ring Company, 199 F. 2d 585 (C A. 1) 344056-55-vol 111-17 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD jority of valid votes cast.' Therefore, we shall certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified International Association of Machinists. AFL, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of all production and maintenance employees employed by Rockwell Valves, Inc., at its Sulphur Springs, Texas, plant, including machin- ists, machine operators, assemblers, tool crib attendants, shop clerks and janitors, and trainees working within the bargaining unit, but excluding all other employees, including office personnel, executives, technical employees, engineers, metallurgists, laboratory assistants, time-study and methods engineers, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.] 2 Albion Malleable Iron Company, 104 NLRB 225, Vulcan Furniture Manufacturing Corporation, 97 NLRB 1116, and cases cited therein. WHEELING PIPE LINE, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CIIAUFFETJRS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER- ICA, LOCAL No. 568, AFL. Case No. 15-CA-5593. January 20, 1955 Decision and Order On July 14, 1953, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom ,,nd take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In- termediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices, and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Coun- sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations except insofar as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below.' I Member Murdock disagrees with the majority finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by paying a smaller Christmas bonus in 1952 to those strikers who had returned to work than they would have received had they not par- ticipated in the strike He considers significant the finding of the Trial Examiner, with which the majority apparently agree, that the Christmas bonus was not an integral part of the Respondent's wage structure , was not related to wages earned , and was not given pursuant to any established agreement or commitment to the drivers. On the contrary, 111 NLRB No. 43.