Parsons Punch Corp.

610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the record that were one of the other janitors absent, he would prob- ably substitute for him, but as of the hearing date, the situation had not arisen. We find that the paper baler is not a guard.' The three janitor-watchmen perform janitorial duties as well as maintenance duties throughout the plant; someone is on duty at all times-24 hours per day, 7 days each week. Their duties include open- ing the doors to permit the entrance of employees. The Employer con- tends that the janitor-watchmen guard the entrances into the plant when the doors are open and introduced a schedule of hours which was posted in the plant showing periods that these employees were to remain at the doors. However, the janitor-watchmen testified at the hearing that within the last few months, their janitorial duties had increased and with the approval of their foreman, they no longer remained at the entrance after they opened the doors. Occasionally they inspect packages an employee may be carrying out as he leaves. Authorized packages carry a label of the foreman. When the plant is not in operation, the janitor-watchman makes a complete round of the building to make sure everything is all right as soon as he reports to work. Employees entering or leaving the plant when the doors are closed must ring a bell and await the watchman-janitor to open the door. No admission into the plant is permitted by the janitor-watch- man of unauthorized personnel. Although these employees are not armed, uniformed, or deputized, it is their duty to inform the Employer of the unauthorized removal of packages as well as the presence of any unauthorized person in the plant. In these circumstances, we find the janitor-watchmen are guards within the meaning of the Act.' Inasmuch as the Petitioner admits to membership employees other than guards, Section 9 (b) requires the dismissal of this petition in so far as it pertains to the employees herein found to be guards. As to the paper baler, the Board` has long found that one employee does not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] See Gen Pro, Inc., 110 NLRB 12. See Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383. PARSONS PUNCH CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-2423. Feb- ruary 14,1955 Decision and Direction On April 21, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh 111 NLRB No. 102. PARSONS PUNCH CORPORATION 611 Region.' Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally shows the following results : Number of eligible voters-- --------------------------------------- 12 Void Ballots---------------------------------------------------- 0 Votes cast for the Petitioner--------------------------------------- 5 Votes cast against the Petitioner------------------------------------ 7 Valid votes counted------------------------------- -------------- 12 Challenged ballots----------------------------------------------- 6 The Employer challenged four of the voters : Richard C. Hull, Roy C. Mitchell, Harold Howser, and Donald W. Tomlinson. Two of the voters were challenged by the Petitioner, namely, Alfred Draper and Richard Parsons. After an investigation, on August 25, 1954, the Acting Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots wherein he made three recommendations : (1) That the challenges to the ballots of Harold Howser, Donald W. Tomlinson, and Richard C. Hull be overruled; (2) that a hearing be held to determine the questions raised by the challenges to the ballots of Roy C. Mitchell, Alfred Draper, and Richard Parsons, and to de- termine whether the Employer's operations sufficiently affect com- merce to warrant the assertion of the Board's jurisdiction; (3) that the opening and counting of the ballots of Howser, Tomlinson, and Hull be deferred pending the determination of the eligibility to vote of Mitchell, Draper, and Parsons. No exceptions to this report were filed by the Employer or the Petitioner. On September 28, 1954, the Board issued an order directing a hear- ing in which the three recommendations made by the Acting Regional Director were adopted, a hearing directed, and the hearing officer ordered to prepare a report on such hearing containing resolutions of witnesses' credibility, findings of fact, and recommendations. Pur- suant to the notice, a hearing was held on October 18 and 19, 1954, before John F. von Rohr, hearing officer. The Employer and the Pe- titioner appeared and participated. Full opportunity to be heard, ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded the parties. 11 Subsequent to the election , but prior to the hearing, a lease was executed between the Employer involved herein and The F & S Company , herein called F & S. By the terms of this lease , F & S leased the machinery and part of the plant of the Employer. The Em- ployer purchases the raw materials for F & S, and F & S sells the finished product to the Employer on the basis of labor cost plus 10 percent . The rental paid by the lessee is 5 percent of the labor cost. A former employer and a former officer in the Employer 's busi- ness are the partners in F & S. All of the Employer 's employees upon the execution of the lease became employees of F & S without interruption in their employment . The change in employment has not changed the nature of the unit or the employees involved. We have previously held that where, after a direction of election has been issued, the business involved is transferred , but there is no change in any essential attribute of the employment relationship, the direction is to be construed as providing for an election among the employees of the successor . See Allan W. Fleming, Inc., 91 NLRB 612, at 614, and cases cited therein. 344056-55-vol. 111-40 612 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On December 3,1954, in accordance with the Board Order, the hear- ing officer issued and duly served upon the parties his report. The hearing officer recommended: (1) That the Petitioner's challenge to the vote of Draper be overruled and that he be included in the unit; (2) that the Petitioner's challenge as to Richard Parsons be sustained and that he be excluded from the unit; and (3) that the Employer's challenge to the ballot of Roy C. Mitchell be overruled and that he be included in the unit. It was further recommended that the Regional Director for the Seventh Region be directed to open and count the ballots of Harold Howser, Donald W. Tomlinson, and Richard C. Hull-the opening of whose ballots had been ordered deferred until after the hearing; also that there be opened and counted the ballots of Roy C. Mitchell and Alfred Draper-2 of the 3 voters considered at the hearing. On December 27, 1954, the Employer filed exceptions to the hearing -officer's report. The Union did not file exceptions to the report; there- fore, we adopt without further discussion his recommendation that Alfred Draper, whose voting eligibility the Union questioned, be in- cluded in the unit. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act? 2. The labor organization involved herein claims to represent cer- tain 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. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Dray- ton Plains, Michigan, plant, including plant clerical employees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, plant guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The challenged ballots : In its exceptions, the Employer contends that Roy C. Mitchell should be excluded from the unit on the ground that he is an office clerical and that Richard Parsons should be included in the unit as a production employee. It was revealed at the hearing that Mitchell works in the production area testing, wrapping, and packaging the tools manufactured by the Employer. We find Mitchell to be a plant clerical. Therefore, we sustain the finding made by the hearing officer 2 At the hearing on challenges the parties stipulated that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the Employer had made direct out-of- State shipments during 1953 in excess of $50,000. PARSONS PUNCH CORPORATION ' 613 and include Mitchell in the unit. We therefore overrule the challenge to his ballot. As to Richard Parsons, it was testified that he spends all of his time in the office and is hardly ever in the production area. We find that Richard Parsons is not engaged in production or plant clerical work. Accordingly, in conformity with the hearing officer's recommendation, we sustain the challenge to his ballot and exclude Parsons from the unit.3 The Board has reviewed the other rulings made by the hearing offi- cer at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the report on challenged ballots with findings and recommendations, the Employer's exceptions to this report, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing officer. [The Board directed that the Acting Regional Director for the Sev- enth Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, within 10 days from the date of this Direction open and count the ballots of Harold Howser, Donald W. Tomlinson, Richard C. Hull, Roy C. Mitchell, and Alfred Draper and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties, including Parsons Punch Corporation and Finley Fulkerson and Wayne E. Scott, d/b/a The F & S Com- pany, a supplemental tally of ballots, including thereon the count of the ballots which were challenged but overruled by this Decision.] 8 One ground of the Petitioner's challenge of Richard Parsons was the contention that he enjoyed special status as the son of the Employer' s majority stockholder and chairman of the board of directors. The hearing officer sustained this contention and used the finding with respect thereto as an alternate ground for Parsons' exclusion . However, in view of our finding that Richard Parsons is not engaged in production or plant clerical work, we have no occasion to pass on the question of his special status. Hearing Officer's Report on Challenged Ballots With Findings and Recommendations Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on April 21 , 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region among the employees of the employer in the unit agreed to as appropriate , to wit: All production and maintenance employees of the Company , including plant clerical employees, excluding office clerical employee, professional employees, plant guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. The results of the election were as follows: Approximate number of eligible voters ------------------------------ 12 Void ballots ---------------------------------------------------- 0 Votes cast for Petitioner ------------------------------------------ 5 Votes cast against participating labor organization --------------------- 7 Valid votes counted ---------------------------------------------- 12 Challenged ballots- ---------------------------------------------- 6 Valid votes cast plus challenged ballots------------------------------ 18 On August 25, 1954, the Acting Regional Director issued and served upon the par- ties his report on challenged ballots wherein he recommended that the challenges to the ballots of Harold Howser, Donald W. Tomlinson , and Richard C. Hull be overruled. He further recommended that a hearing be held to determine the ques- 614 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions raised by challenges of votes of Roy C. Mitchell, Alfred Draper, and Richard Parsons, and further, whether or not the Employer's operations sufficiently affect commerce to warrant the assertion of jurisdiction under prevailing jurisdictional standards. Accordingly, he recommended that the opening and counting of the bal- lots of Howser, Tomlinson, and Hull be deferred pending the determination of the eligibility of Mitchell, Draper, and Parsons. No exceptions were filed by any of the parties to the recommendations of the Acting Regional Director, and on September 28, 1954, the Board issued its order directing hearing. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Detroit, Michigan, on October 18 and 19, 1954, before the hearing offi- cer, duly designated to conduct such hearing. Each party was represented and fully participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertaining to the issues was afforded all parties. For reasons appearing hereinafter, the hearing officer on November 4, 1954, is- sued an order permitting reopening of hearing upon request of The F. &. S. Com- pany. Said order, in substance, provided that the transcript of the testimony and exhibits be made available to Finley Fulkerson and Wayne E. Scott d/b/a the F. & S. Company during the week commencing November 8, 1954, and further provided that upon the request of The F. & S. Company on or before November 19, 1954, the hearing be reopened for the purpose of permitting The F. & S. Company to examine witnesses who previously testified or to offer further relevant testimony bearing on the issues herein. By letter dated November 13, 1954, Finley Fulkerson, on behalf of The F. & S. Company, advised the hearing officer that it was not desirous of "enter- ing the proceeding." The order directing hearing required that the hearing be held on the issues with re- spect to the Employer's commerce operations and on questions raised by challenges to the votes of Roy C. Mitchell, Alfred Draper, and Richard Parsons. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Jurisdiction Pursuant to the Board's Order, evidence was taken for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the Employer's operations sufficiently affect commerce to warrant the assertion of jurisdiction under prevailing jurisdictional standards. Parsons Punch Corporation is a Michigan corporation engaged in the manufacture and sales of punches and dies. At the hearing it was stipulated, and it is found, that during the calendar year 1953 the Employer shipped products manufactured by it at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, to points and places located outside of the State of Michigan valued in excess of $50,000. Consequently, it is found that the Employer's operations meet the Board's prevailing jurisdictional standards. The Employer urges that its sales had tended to fall off within the 2 or 3 months prior to the hearing and that therefore the Board should not assert jurisdiction. This contention is without merit. The Board recently has held that where it is established that an employer's volume of business for the past year warrants assertion of juris- diction, such jurisdiction will be asserted without regard to speculative changes in its business.' In view of the continuity of business resulting from a lease arrangement between Parsons Punch Corporation and The F. & S. Company, the details of which are set forth hereinafter, I find that the latter Company also meets the Board's jurisdictional requirements under prevailing standards. 2. The challenges a. Richard Parsons The vote of Richard Parsons was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that he enjoys a special status as the son of the president of the Company, that he is an officer and supervisor of the Company, and that he is an employee whose duties do not place him in the production unit. It is undisputed that Richard Parsons is the son of John H. Parsons, who, in addi- tion to being the principal stockholder, is chairman of the board of directors? He came with the Company in 1941 after receiving his engineering degree and there- I Southland Cotton Oil Company, 110 NLRB 433. 2 John H. Parsons testified that he holds over 50 percent of the stock, the balance being held in escrow. PARSONS PUNCH CORPORATION 615 after, at various times, was appointed by John Parsons to positions of president, vice president, and plant superintendent. His last term as an officer, which was that of president, was to run for the year 1953, but he was discharged by John Parsons about the latter part of August of that year. John Parsons testified that Richard Parsons resigned his position as president when discharged, and the Company re- mained without a president for the balance of the year. However, Richard Parsons was rehired within several days after his discharge in August 1953, this time, accord- ing to the testimony of John Parsons, as a "factory worker at an hourly rate." John Parsons further testified that in October or November 1953, Richard wanted another chance to run the shop and that he thereupon made him plant superintendent. Early in 1954, one Fay was hired as plant superintendent and Richard Parsons again be- came a factory worker. From the testimony of John Parsons it also appears, and it is found, that Richard Parsons was paid solely on an hourly rate at all times while he worked for the Company and that his rate of $2.61 per hour, which he received as president and as plant manager in 1953, continued the same after his removal from these positions early in 1954. John Parsons testified that after the hiring of Fay as plant manager, Richard Par- sons performed experimental work and worked on tools "which involved all types of machines, a little drafting, and that is about all." Employees Russell Beaubien, Richard Hull, Donald Row, and Roy Mitchell, wit- nesses called on behalf of the Petitioner, credibly testified that Richard Parsons performed no regular job in the production area and that he spent little of his time there. Beaubien testified that occasionally Parsons would come to the floor to check a machine that was not working properly or that on occasion he would be called from the office to explain processing cards to employees; Mitchell testified that at times Parsons helped to set up machines or instructed employees how to operate them. John Parsons testified that Richard Parsons was not given a desk job in the shop, but that at times "he might have to go in to do a little calculation." On the other hand, Hall and Mitchell testified that they had observed Richard Parsons working at a desk in the office. Mitchell, who frequently entered the office to inquire about shipping problems, estimated that Richard Parsons spent about 50 percent or more of his time in the office. I credit the testimony of Beaubien, Hall, Row, and Mitchell and find that Parsons spent little of his time in the production area and that he was not engaged in production work. I further find that the majority of Parson's time was spent in the office, or away from the production area, where he was engaged in experimental work, making out process cards, and performing work different than that of the production employees.3 In view of the foregoing, I find that Richard Parsons is not engaged in work similar to that performed by the other production employees in the voting unit and that he is not included in the said unit. Moreover, because of his many previous official and supervisory connections with the Company,-which depended solely upon the discretion of John Parsons, I find that Richard Parsons enjoyed a special status which allied his interest with those of management.4 b. Alfred Draper Alfred Draper was challenged by the Petitioner on the grounds that he is an officer and a member of the board of directors of the Employer and is employed in a su- pervisory capacity. The undisputed testimony of John Parsons reveals that Draper, an employee since 1941, was vice president, a member of the board of directors, and plant manager until August 17, 1953, at which time he voluntarily resigned from each of these positions . Parsons did not testify specifically as to the length of time Draper held these positions, but the record is clear that his status as a plant manager and as a supervisory employee went back 8 months, or more, prior to August 1953. However, I find that Draper did not hold any of the foregoing positions subsequent to August 17, 1953. It therefore becomes necessary to determine whether Draper acted in any other supervisory capacity, or held any other special position during the period prior to the election which would exclude him from the voting unit. 8 The testimony of employees Hull, Row, and Tomlinson, which is credited, indicates that Richard Parsons spent 2 days preceding the election working in the production area, but that he did not continue to work there after the election. It is also noted that Richard Parsons, who did not testify at the hearing, left the Com- pany's employ on September 15, 1954. 4 As a further reason for the above finding, it is undisputed that Richard Parsons is one of the incorporators of Parsons Punch Corporation of Canada, an affiliate of the Employer which was organized in 1954. 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As plant superintendent and as a company official, Draper had been paid on an hourly basis. Upon being relieved of these positions he continued to receive the same hourly rate, but his hours were reduced from a 50 to 60-hour week, to the 40-hour week of the other employees. As previously noted, Richard Parsons was plant superintendent during the latter part of 1953, and Fay was hired for this position in about February 1954. Russell Beaubien, a witness for the Petitioner, testified that after Fay was hired, Draper oper- ated all of the machines and worked on various jobs in the production area. Beau- bien further testified that he observed Draper giving orders to 3 or 4 employees who worked on retainers, but he did not specifically illustrate the type of orders allegedly given. Beaubien did not work in the retainer area, nor did he offer any other testi- mony to indicate that Draper acted in a supervisory capacity. Petitioner's witnesses, Tomlinson and Hull, testified that they saw Draper assign- ing work to employees who worked on the retainers and that they heard him tell these employees how many pieces to run; otherwise, their testimony offered nothing fur- ther to support Petitioner's contention that Draper was a supervisor. None of the employees who worked with Draper on the retainers testified at the hearing. John Parsons testified, and his testimony is in accord with Beaubien's on the sub- ject, that Draper was employed as a toolmaker after his resignation as plant super- intendent, and that he performed various jobs and used various machines in the pro- duction area. According to Parson's testimony, which is credited, Draper spent l0a percent of his time performing physical work. Although at times he worked with apprentices and directed them in their work, such direction was of a routine nature. Parsons further testified, and I find, that during the period prior to the election, Draper had no authority to perform the various supervisory functions of hiring, discharging, promoting, disciplining, and the like, and that he did not possess the authority to effectively recommend any such action. Further, there is no evidence that Draper possessed any privileges which were not enjoyed by the other employees. From the foregoing it is apparent, and I find, that the evidence does not sustain Petitioner's contention that Draper was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act during the period in question. As has been noted, Draper performed production work in the production area and worked with the other employees. Accordingly, I find that Draper was employed in the same capacity as the other production em- ployees, and that he is included in the voting unit. Aside from the question of Draper's status as a supervisory employee,. Petitioner claims that Draper is a partner in a company which does business with the Employer herein, and as such occupies a special position which should disqualify him from participating in the election. There is no dispute but that Draper is a partner in a small company, known as the Land-O-Lakes Company, and that said company per- forms rough screw machine work for Parsons Punch Corporation. During the period prior to the election, the amount of work so performed amounted up to $1,000 per month. However, since it has been concluded that Draper is not a supervisor and that he works on production jobs in the production area with other employees in the appropriate unit, I find that his affiliation as a partner with the Land-O-Lakes Com- pany, under the circumstances noted above, is not a sufficient reason for excluding him from the voting unit. c. Roy C. Mitchell Roy C. Mitchell was challenged by the employer on the ground that he is an office employee and therefore is not included in the unit. One of the Employer's contentions in support of its challenge is that Mitchell orig- inally was hired by Wayne Scott, secretary-treasurer and office manager, as an office employee. The evidence does not support this contention. Mitchell, who began his employ with the Company on October 12, 1953, had several preliminary discus- sions with John Parsons and Wayne Scott, but no commitment was made by either as to the job for which he was being hired. When Mitchell reported for work, Rich- ard Parsons, then plant superintendent, assigned him to another employee, one Bur- ton Parker. Mitchell spent the next several days working with Parker learning how to wrap and pack material. When he became familiar with his duties, Parker was assigned to other production work and Mitchell thereafter remained solely engaged in shipping work. Mitchell credibly testified that he spends the majority of his time filling orders from invoices and that this involves the physical work of wrapping and packing fine tools in small packages. In addition, he performs other miscellaneous work, includ- ing the stenciling and oiling of tools before packing, addressing packages, and affix- ing the proper amount of postage and insurance. According to his testimony, which is credited, Mitchell performs no paper work or typing, he does not keep records, nor does he perform any other work normally associated with office clericals. PARSONS PUNCH CORPORATION 617 Mitchell works on a shipping punch located in the shipping area. The Company's office is located in another wing of the building directly opposite this area. The two wings are separated by an out-of-doors court, but are accessible to each other by doors in both wings which open into the court . Mitchell, sometimes as often as 2 or 3 times a day, goes to the office to confer with Scott about such matters as size or quantity of items to be shipped or the amount of insurance required for vari- ous items. Except for going to the office to make these inquiries, Mitchell spends his time working in the production area. The evidence is not clear as to who su- pervises Mitchell. Mitchell testified that his work is routine, and that he is more or less on his own; further, that he consults with Scott on shipping questions but that he occasionally works on machines and on these occasions is supervised by the plant superintendent. John Parsons testified that Mitchell is answerable solely to Scott. However, since the plant is small (18 to 20 employees), and at times has only 2 supervisors, I do not deem the matter of Mitchell's supervision to be controlling. Mitchell punches a time clock, is hourly paid, and keeps the same working hours as production employees. On the other hand, Jane Frazell, who is conceded to be an office clerical; is paid on a salaried basis, works at a desk in the office, and does not keep the same working hours as the production employees. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that Mitchell performs the duties of a shipping clerk and that he works in close association with the other production employees. Accordingly, and in conformance with well-established Board policy,5 I find that Mitchell is included in the voting group of production employees. 3. The lease arrangement between Parsons Punch Corporation and The F. & S. Company Evidence was adduced at the hearing which showed that subsequent to the Re- gional Director's report on challenged ballots, which issued on August 25, 1954, Parsons Punch Corporation, named as the Employer herein, entered into a lease arrangement with Finley Fulkerson and Wayne E. Scott d/b/a The F. & S. Company. Since the lease arrangement bears upon the matter of the identity of the Employer herein, the following findings are made: 6 It is undisputed, and I find, that on September 4, 1954, Parsons Punch Corpora- tion and Finley Fulkerson and Wayne Scott d/b/a The F. & S. Company, hereinafter called The F & S. Company, executed a lease effective until September 23, 1955, wherein the former Company leased to the latter certain of its property, machinery, and equipment "for manufacturing purposes only." Parsons' uncontroverted and credited testimony concerning the lease and its effect upon the employees and operations of the two companies is as follows: All of the buildings, machinery, and equipment, with the exception of the office which is reserved to Parsons Punch Corporation, are leased under the agreement to The F. & S. Company. Parsons Punch Corporation, insofar as its Detroit plant is concerned, operates solely as a sales organization and The F. & S. Company, using the same property and equipment, performs the same manufacturing operations that were performed by the lessor. Pursuant to an arrangement between the parties, the products are thus manufactured by The F. & S. Company and sold by Parsons Punch Corporation. Further, the parties have executed a memo of manufacture agreement whereby Parsons Punch Corporation agrees to pay The F. & S. Company, in return for its products, the labor cost plus 10 percent. At the time the lease was made, Parsons called the employees together, told them about the lease, and gave notice that they were no longer working for the Parsons Punch Corporation. The employees thereafter continued to perform the same work, but received their checks from The F. & S. Company. Finley Fulkerson, one of the partners, is a former employee of Parsons Punch Corporation. Wayne Scott, the other partner, remains a vice president of Parsons Punch Corporation. In addition to Wayne Scott and John Parsons, the only other employees remaining with the Parsons Punch Corporation are Jane Frazell, an office clerical, and James Curie, who acts as a liaison man between the two companies. Parsons testified that he holds no position with The F. & S. Company, but that he has authority to enter the produc- 6 See K W B Manufacturing Company, 106 NLRB 1305. 6 As noted above, the Regional Director's report on challenged ballots issued prior to the lease arrangement ; thus, this matter is not referred to in said report and as a con- sequence the Board did not, in its order directing hearing, specify that evidence be taken with reference to this matter. However, for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary costs or delay, and with the view to effectuating the purposes of the Act, the hearing officer took evidence concerning the lease arrangement at the hearing and covers the matter in this report. 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion area and exercise his influence to see that work is being turned out by the employees according to schedule. In view of the foregoing, I find that The F. & S. Company presently is the em- ployer of the employees in the unit under consideration in the instant case, and further, that no essential attribute of the employment relationship-has changed as a result of the lease arrangement .7 [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 7 Under similar circumstances , where a transfer of ownership was made, after a Board- directed election, the Board granted the Petitioner 's motion to amend its certificate to con- form to the identity of the successor employer. Miller Lumber Company, 90 NLRB 1361. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and LOCAL 1393, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and LOCAL 135, INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and LOCAL 1393, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 35-RC-1009,35- RC-1015,35-RC-1016, and 35-RC-1021. February 14,1955 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before John W. Hines, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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. 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 in Case No. 35-RC-1009. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1015, 1016, and 1021, for reasons set forth below. The Employer, an Indiana corporation, is engaged as a public util- ity in producing electrical energy in the State of Indiana. It pro- vides services directly to approximately 333,830 consumers in 724 1 The IBEW intervened in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1015 and 1021. The CIO intervened in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1009 and 1016. 111 NLRB No. 105.