Continental Tire and Rubber Co., Inc.

CONTINENTAL TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INC. 557 A. No, sir, I don't believe I can. Q. Did you write those down as they happened? A. Yes. Even more important, however, he testified on pages 84 and 85, with regard to his precise record of such "interrogations," that he kept such recordings on a card, a union card, and that he still had the card handy, and that he had it with him. Yet, later on when Mr. Smith had in hand this alleged record, he cross-examined Robertson as follows, which appears on page 89: Q. Mr. Robertson, did you have this card in your pocket about which you were talking about while ago? A. Yes. Q. This writing appears to have been done all at one time. Did you do it all at one time? A. I recopied off of a dirty card. Q. When did you do that? A. That also I don't know, I would say I don't know, a long time before I was laid off, I know one day there, one afternoon I took it . . . . and put it down on that. In summing up this testimony the Respondent turns to the words of the em- ployee himself. He states on page 87 that he went in and asked Foreman Robin- son about his experiences in the union on company time, that the foreman did not send for him,and that the foreman did not try to keep him out of the union. (c) Working Leader McClellan-With respect to this paragraph, added to the complaint at the hearing, the record shows only one conversation between such foreman and an employee. This occurred between McClellan and employee Houston. The time and date of such conversation are nowhere shown in the record. Houston testified on page 110 that McClellan called him into his office and talked about being in the union. In answer to the query, "What did he say," Houston stated on page 111 that McClellan, "Told him the bad points of it;" that he could not recall anything specifically, but was just general conversation. Al- though McClellan was probably injudicious in this act, it hardly constitutes inter- rogation within the meaning of the Act. With respect to the complaint contained in Paragraph 7, that Personnel Man- ager Burnett threatened to discharge employees if they joined the Union or re- tained membership in, or engaged in activities on behalf of, the union, Respondent can only state that there does not appear in the record any evidence or testimony to support this allegation. With respect to Paragraph 8 of the complaint that Burnett solicited employees to spy upon and keep under surveillance union meetings and activities of its em- ployees, and to advise it of the names of its employees who were members of the union or were active on behalf of the union, Respondent can only state that there is not one scintilla of evidence to support any such allegation. In conclusion, I find that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of prov- ing the allegations in his complaint by a preponderance of the evidence as required under the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Babcock and Wilcox Company is, and at all times relevant herein was engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Continental Tire and Rubber Company, Inc. and United Rubber Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America , CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2913. April 29,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated December 22, 1954, an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 14, 1955, 112 NLRB No. 71. 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate. Upon conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 21 eligible voters, 8 cast valid ballots, of which 6 were for, and 2 against, the Petitioner. There were 13 challenged ballots, a number sufficient to affect the results of the election. The Regional Director conducted an investigation of the issues raised by the challenges, and on February 15, 1955, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots, recommending that the challenges to 9 of the ballots be sustained, and that the challenges to the remaining 4 ballots be overruled and that they be opened and counted. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di- rector's report. The Petitioner excepts to the Regional Director's finding that nine employees, whose ballots were challenged by the Employer, were per- manently laid off, and to the finding that Milton D. Roth, Ray Press- ley, and Hague Overton, who were challenged by the Petitioner on the ground of supervisory status, were eligible to vote at the election. The Petitioner does not except to the Regional Director's finding that Russell C. Hill, whose ballot was challenged by the Petitioner, is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report on chal- lenges and the Petitioner's exceptions, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's recommendations. Accordingly, we shall sustain the chal- lenges to the ballots of the nine laid-off employees,' and overrule the challenges to the ballots of Russell C. Hill, Milton D. Roth, Ray Press- ley, and Hague Overton 2 and direct that they be opened and counted. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Tenth Re- gion shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of Russell C. Hill, Milton D. Roth, Ray Pressley, and Hague Overton and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.] MEMBER LEEDOII took no part in the consideration of the above Sup- plemental Decision and Direction. iIn sustaining the challenges to the ballots of these laid-off employees , boa ever, we do not rely as did the Regional Director upon the fact of their ballots having been challenged by the Employer as indicative of their nonexpectancy of reemployment. Rather we rely upon the other factors set forth in the Regional Director's report 2As to Overton, we do not adopt the Regional Director's finding that the Petitioner's challenge should not be consideied for the reason that a heating was held at which the Petitioner had an opportunity to present its evidence concerning this employee It is clear that his status was in no way litigated at the hearing, nor has his eligibility been deter- mined by the Board Ave are satisfied, however, upon the basis of the Regional Director's report and the exceptions thereto that Overton is not a supervisor and was eligible to vote in the election