J. Miller Printing Co.

J. MILLER PRINTING COMPANY 877 This contention was advanced by the Union at the hearing; notwithstanding which the Board found that the Union's conduct had constituted a claim for recognition, which claim had not been effectively withdrawn. The same argument was put forth by the Union in its motion for reconsideration, dismissal, and stay of election which it submitted on December 10, 1958, after issuance of the Board's Decision. The contention was again rejected by the Board in its Order Denying Motion, which issued on December 19, 1958. This objection is another effort by the Union to advance the same argument. Al- though invited to do so, it has submitted no new evidence in support thereof. It is well established that matters considered and rejected by the Board cannot be used as the basis for objections. (Burris Mill, Inc., 116 NLRB 1257.) The Regional Director therefore concludes that there is no merit to objection No. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with the foregoing conclusions, the Regional Director recommends that the objections be overruled. As provided in Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 7, as amended, any party desiring to take exceptions to my report and recommendations may within 10 days from the date of issuance of my report file with the Board in Washington, D.C., 7 copies of such exceptions. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with me as Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, National Labor Relations Board, Metropolitan Building, 508 North Grand Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri. J. Miller Printing Company; Gem Offset Plate Company and Local No. 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Peti- tioner. Case No. 9-PC-9648. April ^?4, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on February 3, 1959,' an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on February 13, 1959, by the Regional Director among the employees in the appropriate unit. Upon the conclusion of the elec- tion, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 10 eligible voters, 4 were for the Petitioner, 4 against the Petitioner, and 2 ballots were challenged. After an investigation, the Regional Director on March 10, 1959, issued a report on challenged ballots in which he recommended that the challenges to the ballots of Harvey Shill and Stanley Jacob be sustained, and that the Board issue a certification of the results of the election. Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's findings as to the challenged ballots. The Board 2 has considered the Regional Director's report on chal- lenged ballots, and the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director.' 1122 NLRB 1256. a 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. 3 In its exceptions the Petitioner took issue with certain factual findings of the Regional Director relating to the exact date that Shill and Jacobs, whose challenged ballots are in 123 NLRB No. 112. 878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 51, have received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for Local No. 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, and that said Union is not the exclusive representative of all the litho- graphic production employees at the Employer's New York,' New York, plant in the unit found to be appropriate.] question, left the Employer's payroll and to the type of work and the amount of overtime being performed by Rascuglia who, according to the Petitioner, holds the same type of job as was held by Jacobs. As it is undisputed that as of the eligibility period and on the date of the election both Shill and Jacobs were off the Employer 's payroll , we find it unnecessary to resolve the dispute as to the exact date this occurred . Even assuming arguendo that Rascuglia is performing the same type of work as was performed by Jacobs and has been receiving an unusual amount of overtime since Jacob's layoff, we find that this circumstance , viewed in light of the entire record, does not warrant overturning the Regional Director's recommendation regarding the challenge to Jacob's ballot. Accord- ingly, as we are persuaded that neither Jacobs nor Shill as of the eligibility period had a reasouable expectancy of reemployment in the immediate future, we agree with the Regional Director that they were ineligible to vote . The Barr Rubber Products Company, 11.8 NLRB 1428, 1430; Norris-Thermador Corporation, 118 NLRB 1341, 1343. General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division and Local No. 376, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Ind.), Peti- tioner. Case No. 7-RC-399. April 24, 1959 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES After investigation of the Employer's timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election herein, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the objections did not raise substantial and ma- terial issues affecting the results of the election and recommended that they be overruled and the Petitioner be certified as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described: be- low. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board 1 has considered the Employer's objections, the Regional Director's report, and the Employer's exception thereto, and hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director, and on the entire record in this case finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning-of the Act. ' 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 [Members Rodgers ,.Bean, and Fanning]. ., 123 NLRB No. 111.