Epstein Harris Manufacturing Co.

EPSTEIN HARRIS MANUFACTURING CO. 299 APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, by refusing or failing to furnish said Union insurance data, including costs, or by refusing or failing to furnish said Union information concerning shop rules and regulations. WE WILL NOT discourage self-organization or concerted activities among employes for their mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by threatening employees with reprisals because of such activities, by promising employees rewards on condition that they abandon their member- ship in and activity on behalf of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or by interrogating employees concerning such activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in union or concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL furnish to the Union named in this notice insurance data, includ- ing the costs thereof, and the shop rules and regulations affecting the working conditions of our employees. STOWE-WOODWARD, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------- ------------------------ (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must of be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Epstein Harris Manufacturing Co. and International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4151. March 18, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election dated August 6, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 21, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director from the Tenth Region, among the employees in the appro- priate unit. After the election the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that eight ballots were cast, all of which were challenged. Three were challenged by the Petitioner and five by the Employer. Since the challenges were sufficient in number to affect the results ,of the election, the Acting Regional Director pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, investigated the challenged ballots, and on November 4, 1958, issued his report on challenged ballots. In his report the Acting Regional Director recommended that challenges to the ballots of certain individuals be sustained and the challenges I Unpublished. 123 NLRB No. 39. 300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the ballots of other individuals be overruled and that their ballots be opened and counted. Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely ex- ceptions to the Acting Regional Director 's report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Petitioner challenged the ballots of Arthur Meledandri, Jo- seph Rabich, and Cyril Dixon on the grounds that they were not permanent replacements for striking employees . The Employer challenged the ballots of Thommie Hime, Wilbur Arnold, Edward Campbell, Leon Richardson, and William Young on the grounds that they were striking employees who had been permanently re- placed, or whose jobs had been abolished. As there was no exception to the Regional Director's recommenda- tion to overrule the Employer's challenge to Hime's ballot, we hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and overrule the challenge. The Acting Regional Director's report shows that on May 12, 1958, after the Employer refused to recognize the Petitioner, the marker grader, Himes, and the cutters Arnold, Campbell, Richard- son, and Young went out on strike. On May 16, 1958, the Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges, alleging that the Employer re- fused to bargain in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, Case No. 10-CA-3356. The charges were dismissed by the Regional Director on May 27, 1958, and no appeal was made to the General Counsel. On July 2, 1958, the Employer refused the striking em- ployees' request for reinstatement, advising them that they had been permanently replaced. On July 7, 1958, the Petitioner filed un- fair labor practice charges alleging the Employer's refusal to rein- state the employees was in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, Case No. 10-CA-3468. The Regional Director's dismissal of the charges on July 28, 1958, was sustained by the General Coun- sel on October 16, 1958. In these circumstances we presume that the striking employees were denied reinstatment for nondiscriminatory reasons. 2 Accordingly, as Arnold, Campbell, Richardson, and Young were no longer employees on the eligibility date, we adopt the Acting Regional Director's recommendation and sustain the challenges to their ballots. The Regional Director's investigation revealed that after the strike began Meledandri and Rabich, experienced cutters, were recruited from New York City and hired as permanent employees at the Em- ployer's Nashville plant; Dixon was transferred from the shipping ' See Dura Steel Products Conipany, 111 NLRB 590 , 593. The Petitioner's motion to remand is hereby denied. WATE, INC. 301 department to the cutting department on a permanent basis, and the supervisors were instructed by the Employer to devote part of their time to the cutting operation. From the foregoing, we conclude that Meledandri, Rabich, and Dixon are permanent replacements for the striking employees who were employed on the eligibility date, and were eligible to participate in the election.3 Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Di- rector's recommendation we hereby overrule the challenges to the ballots of Meledandri, Rabich, and Dixon. As we have overruled the challenges to four of the eight challenged ballots and as the outcome of the election depends upon the con- sideration of those four ballots, we shall direct that they be opened and counted. [The Board directed that the Acting Regional Director for the Tenth Region shall, within 10 days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of Thommie Hime, Arthur Meledandri, Joseph Rabich, and Cyril Dixon, and serve upon the parties a sup- plemental tally of ballots.] 8 Although Rabich was in New York on leave of absence without pay, on the eligibility date, he returned to work on August 11, 1958, was still employed on September 3, 1958, and was therefore eligible to participate in the election. WATE, Inc. and Local No. 760, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC- 4067. March 19, 1959 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 24, 1958, among the employees in the agreed appropriate unit, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally of ballots shows that 16 ballots were cast, of which 6 were for the Petitioner and 10 were against the Petitioner. There were no void or challenged ballots. On April 28, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the election. In accord with the Board's Rules and Regu- lations, the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of the issues raised by the objections, and on August 13, 1958, he issued and served on the parties his report on objections. He recom- mended that the Board overrule allegations Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 123 NLRB No. 36.