Chester Cable Corp.

CHESTER CABLE CORP. 615 ditions are uniform as far as possible throughout the Employer's organization. Accordingly, I would and do find that a unit limited to Danville, Virginia, is inappropriate. MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Order. Chester Cable Corp. and Local No. 441, Metal Precision, Elec- tronics and Production Workers, National Independent Union Council, Petitioner and Local No. 1783, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-RC-9679. April 3, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted among certain employees of the Employer, on December 19, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which shows that 111 ballots were cast, of which 50 were for the Petitioner, 52 were for the Intervenor, and 9 were challenged. The challenges were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On December 29, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. After investigation of the objections and challenges, the Regional Director, on February 12, 1959, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections and challenged ballots. On February 20, 1959, the Employer filed exceptions solely to the disposition of three of the nine challenges in the Regional Director's report, as will be described below. The Petitioner and the Intervenor filed no exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. The Regional Director found in his report that the objections filed by the Petitioner were without merit and, accordingly, recommended that they be overruled. As no exceptions were filed to this recom- mendation, we adopt it. The Regional Director recommended that the challenges to the ballots of Charles Weeks, Morris Conterino, Howard Doremus, Veto Mangano, Thomas Murphy, Joseph Lawrence, and Anoinette Wan- czyk be overruled, and that their ballots be opened and counted. He also recommended that the challenges to the ballots of Cornelius Meeuwisse and Floyd Crossway be sustained. As no exceptions were 123 NLRB No. 84. 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD filed to the recommendations concerning Weeks, Conterino, Doremus, Mangano, Meeuwisse, and Crossway, we adopt the Regional Direc- tor's recommendation as to those challenges. The Employer filed ex- ceptions to the Regional Director's findings and recommendation as to Murphy, Lawrence, and Wanczyk. The Regional Director found that Murphy, Lawrence, and Wan- czyk held the status of laid-off employees on the election date, and that these employees had a reasonable expectancy of future employ- ment by the Employer as of such date, which rendered them eligible to vote. Thus, his investigation disclosed that Murphy and Lawrence had worked for the Employer as machinists, 41/2 and 11/2 years, respectively, prior to being laid off on November 7, 1958. He found that pursuant to the departmental seniority in force in the plant, Murphy would be entitled to recall first, and Lawrence second, in the event additional machinists were required by the Employer. He found that Wanczyk, a braider, was first employed by the Employer on November 7, 1957; that prior to her layoff for economic reasons on November 7, 1958, she had twice been laid off and later recalled to work ; and that her departmental seniority placed her next in line for recall in the event additional braiders were required. We disa- gree with the Employer's position in its exceptions that the Regional Director's conclusions and recommendations as to Murphy,' Lawrence, and Wanczyk are not based upon sufficient evidence. Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Director's findings that they were eligible to vote as of the time of the election, and shall order their ballots opened and counted. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Second Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, open and count the ballots of Weeks, Conterino, Dore- mus, Mangano, Murphy, Lawrence, and Wanczyk, and serve upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said challenged ballots.] I On February 11, 1959, the General Counsel issued a formal complaint based upon a charge filed by Murphy alleging that his November 7, 1958, layoff violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. Our finding herein as to Murphy's eligibility to vote in no way 'affects the issues and the possible disposition of the pending unfair labor practice case. Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc. and International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA-86/.. April 6, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On September 17, 1958, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, funding that the Respondent 123 NLRB No. 73.