United States Gypsum Co.

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 551 Subsequent to certification and up until December 1, 1953, incon- clusive bargaining negotiations were held between the Carpenters and the Employer. However, since December 1, 1953, there have been no bargaining negotiations and to date there has not been a contract signed for any of the four units. Despite their failure the Carpenters continued to claim to represent the employees. Recently, another union, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local 12,330, which represents the Employer's production and maintenance em- ployees, advised the Employer that it represents a majority of the employees in the machinists and garage mechanics, pipefitters, and sheetmetal workers units. The Employer thereupon filed the instant petitions with respect to these employees. An individual employee has filed a petition requesting a decertification election for the instru- anent and scale mechanics unit, alleging that the Carpenters is no longer the bargaining representative of these employees within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. In view of the above facts, we find that questions concerning repre- sentation exist warranting elections at this time. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 2 (1) All instrument and scale mechanics and their apprentices; (2) all machinists and garage me- chanics and their apprentices; (3) all pipefitters and their appren- tices; (4) all sheetmetal workers and their apprentices. [Text of Direction of Elections 2 omitted from publication.] 2 The unit descriptions appear as ultimately found appropriate in National Aniline Divi- sion, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, supra. The record shows that the duties of the employees in the four units involved have not changed since the hearing in the latter case we find without merit the Employer 's contention that these unit determinations are no longer valid because of the recent Board decisions dealing with craft severance. This case does not involve issues of craft severance , the units in question having pre- viously been established as separate appropriate units. 2 Although the Carpenters ' International was certified by the Board in Case No. 3-RC-1029, Local 2034 subsequently came into being in the Employer's plant . The Local appeared at the hearing and claims to represent the employees involved. UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY a'nd UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEM- ICAL WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-2282. Febru- ary 8, 1955 Supplemental Decision, Order, and Certification of Representatives On September 17, 1954, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in a production and maintenance unit found appropriate by the Board.' The Board did not pass upon the unit placement of 2 109 NLRB 1402. 111 NLRB No. 86. 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD board machine men and board cascade tenders, but provided for them to vote subject to challenge. On September 27, 1954, the Employer- filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the Board to exclude three categories from the bargaining unit, or in the alternative, to re- open the hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence on which to, base a determination of the status of the disputed categories. On Oc- tober 12, 1954, the Board granted the motion to the extent of specifi- cally excluding the testers, one of the disputed categories, from the unit, but denied the motion to exclude board machine men and board cascade tenders, alleged supervisory categories, and permitted these two categories to vote challenged ballots. Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election and the subse- quent Orders, an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 14, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region among the employees of the Employer. Upon completion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was furnished the par- ties. The tally reveals that of approximately 343 eligible voters, 336 cast ballots : 262 were cast for the Petitioner, 62 against the Petitioner, 2 ballots were void, and 10 ballots were challenged. On October 19, 1954, the Employer filed objections to the conduct of the election, and to conduct affecting the results of the election,, where it alleged : 1. The voting unit set forth in the Notice of Election purported to include the alleged supervisory categories, the board machine men and the board cascade tenders, and unduly influenced the vote of the employees. 2. The election was held without the hearing contemplated by Section 9 (c) of the Act and before a Board determination of a complete appropriate unit inasmuch as the Board did not deter- mine the status of board machine men and board cascade tenders. 3. A false and scandalous rumor was circulated by a key or- ganizer of the Petitioner, Vogel, that he would be fired if the Union lost the election; the Employer did not hear of the rumor until the day of the election, too late to act to counteract or neu- tralize the effect on the employees, and, consequently, the election was conducted in a climate of outrage and suspicion. Thereafter, on November 22, 1954, following an investigation, the Regional Director issued his report on objections and recommenda- tion for certification of representatives. The Regional Director found that the Board had in effect passed upon the first two objections of the Employer when it considered the Employer's motion for recon- sideration, and that the rumor mentioned in the third objection was not,•calculated to have a coercive effect upon employees in the bargain- ing unit and could have had no substantial effect upon the results of the election. The Regional Director found that the objections did not POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 553 raise substantial or material issues with respect to the election or con- duct affecting the results of the election and recommended that they be overruled. The Regional Director further found that the status of categories which were challenged could best be determined after a hearing, but that the certification should not be delayed inasmuch as the challenges did not affect the results of the election. We shall accept the Regional Director's recommendation, and issue a certification. The Employer did not file formal exceptions to the Regional Direc- tor's report, but on December 1, 1954, the Employer filed a motion for further hearing where it stated that it did not agree with the Regional Director's report with respect to its objections Nos. 1 and 2. It chal- lenged the procedure of holding an election in an "incomplete bargain- ing unit" and certifying such a unit prior to a determination of al- leged supervisory categories. We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the election was improper, and, inasmuch as the Petitioner has received a majority of the votes cast in the election and the challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election, we shall issue a certification to the Peti- tioner. However, we shall grant the Employer's motion to order a further hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence with respect to the al- leged supervisory status of the board machine men and the board cas- cade tenders for the purpose of determining whether those classifica- tions should be included in the bargaining unit heretofore found ap- propriate. Both classifications were permitted to vote subject to chal- lenge in our recent Direction of Election. [The Board remanded the case to the Regional Director for the pur- pose of receiving evidence of the duties and responsibilities of the board machine men and the board cascade tenders.] [The Board certified United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees of United States Gypsum Company at Fort Dodge, Iowa, in the unit found by the Board to be appropriate.] POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L ., PETITIONER. Ci a. e NO. 5-RC,-1473. Febrruary9,1955 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 Henry L. Segal, hearing 111 NLRB No. 92.