Arwood Can Manufacturing Co.

ARWOOD CAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 625 Arwood Can Manufacturing Company and Lodge No. 555, Inter- national Association of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-.2930. May 6,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board on February 3, 1955, an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 17, 1955, under the direction and supervision of tha Regional Director for the Tenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the Decision. At the con- clusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of bal- lots, which showed that of approximately 15 eligible voters, 7 cast valid ballots for the Petitioner, 6 cast valid ballots against the Petitioner, and 1 ballot was challenged. Because the challenged ballot was sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation of the challenged ballot. On March 18, 1955, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report on election, challenged bal- lots, and recommendations to the Board, recommending that the chal- lenge to the ballot of George Brown be sustained. Thereafter, on March 21, 1955, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Di- rector's report and a brief in support of its exceptions. On March 25, 1955, the Petitioner filed a brief in support of the Regional Direc- tor's recommendation. Contrary to the Employer, the Petitioner contends that Brown is a casual employee and therefore the challenge to his ballot should be sus- tained. The Regional Director's investigation discloses that Brown is called "only when needed" 2 and that his name appeared on the pay- roll only twice prior to the election. During the week ending Janu- ary 13, 1955, Brown worked 141/2 hours and did not work again until the week ending February 10, 1955, during which period he only worked 2 hours. Thus, it appears that, during Brown's 6-week em- ployment history, he worked only about 7 percent of the time.' I Not reported in pi rated volumes of Board Decisions and Orders 2 The Employer admits that, with minor exceptions, Brown is generally called only when Puckett, an employee ii ith gi eater seniority, is unavailable 3 The Employer, nevertheless, argues that because employee Puckett voted an unchal- lenged ballot Brown should be found eligible to vote on the ground that if Brown's pattern of employment should be projected over a period of 22 weeks it would equal that of Puckett's for a similar peirod duiing which Puckett worked prior to the election We find no meat in this argument for two ieasons First, Puckett's eligibility as voter is not before as for determination Secondly, assuming argiicndo we should, as suggested by the Employer, use Puckett s status as a guide to determine Brown's eligibility to vote, the Regional Dmrectoi's investigation discloses that Puckett's pattern of employment during a period of 22 weeks is substantially gieatei than that of Brown's when projected over a similar period 112 NLRB No 87 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon these uncontroverted facts, we find that George Brown is es- sentially a casual employee and therefore ineligible to vote in the elec- tion.' Accordingly, we shall adopt the Regional Director's recommen- dation and sustain the challenge to Brown's ballot. Because it there- fore appears that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of the Employer's employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Lodge No. 555, International Association of Machinists, AFL, as the designated collective bargaining representa- tive of the employees of the Employer at its Knoxville, Tennessee, plant.] 4 See Albers Super Markets, Inc, 110 NLRB 474; 11. P. Wasson and Company, 104 NLRB 249, 250. A. M. Andrews Company of Oregon and A. M. Andrews of Illi- nois, Inc. and International Association of Machinists, AFL. Case No. 141-CA-1208. May 10,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On October 28, 1954, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that one of the Respondents, A. M. Andrews of Illinois, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Respondent Illinois, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto; and finding further that the other Respondent, A. M. Andrews Company of Oregon, here- inafter referred to as Respondent Oregon, had not engaged in any un- fair labor practices and was not responsible for the unfair labor practices in which Respondent Illinois had engaged and was engaging. 'Thereafter the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port and a brief in support of these exceptions. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifica- tions and additions : 1. In their exceptions and brief the Respondents request that the record be reopened to permit the introduction into evidence of addi- tional data pertaining to the Respondents' financial condition. The data which the Respondents would introduce is set forth in detail in 112 NLRB No. 89.