Victor Comptometer Corp. of America

DES MOINES GLOVE CO., ETC. 225 Des Moines Glove Co., subsidiary of Victor Comptometer Corp. of America and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen AFL-CIO, Leather Division, Petitioner. Case No. 18-RC-5570. March 2, 1964 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted September 24, 1963, by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, among the em- ployees in the unit described below. After the election the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which shows that of approximately 90 eligible voters, 89 cast ballots, of which 39 were for, and 46 against, the Petitioner, 2 were challenged, and 2 were void.' The challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the election results. Pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Di- rector conducted an investigation and, on November 14, 1963, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections in which he recommended that objection No. 1 be sustained, and that the elec- tion be set aside and a new one directed. The Employer filed timely -exceptions to the report. In view of the issues of fact raised by the Employer's exceptions, the Regional Director informed the parties and the Board that he would reconsider his report and, on Decem- ber 30, 1963, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his supplemental report on objections in which he reaffirmed .his recommendation that the election be set aside. The Employer filed -timely exceptions to the Regional Director's supplemental 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of ,.Section 9(c) (1) and and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following em- ployees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- 146 NLRB No. 24. 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees of the Employer, exclud- ing office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 5. We have considered the Regional Director's reports and the ex- ceptions thereto, and hereby adopt the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director.' Accordingly, we shall set aside the election and direct that a new election be held. [The Board set aside the election conducted herein on September 24, 1963.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 1 In its exceptions to the supplemental report the Employer objects to the Regional Director's action in treating the exceptions to his first report as a "motion for reconsidera- tion." The Employer contends that the Board should have passed upon its exceptions to the first report and ordered a hearing on the factual issues raised. We find no merit in this contention. The Regional Director In effect decided to supplement his consideration of objection No. 1 before the Board passed upon his recommendations, and no prejudice Is shown to have resulted therefrom, as the Employer has had opportunity to file excep- tions to the supplemental report. The Employer contends that the Regional Director erred in concluding that, because the Employer had no established plan for periodic or merit wage increases , the wage adjustments granted to five employees 12 days before the election were given to influence the results. In support of this contention it alleges that Freund, the Employer's new plant manager , had announced to employees at the time he assumed his duties on May 2, 1963 , that a survey of the wage structure would be under- taken in order to correct any wage inequities, that the employees knew this survey was in progress, and that by the nature of the survey wage adjustments would not be effectu- ated according to a regular or periodic plan. However, in our opinion , because of the flexibility of the survey and the absence of an explanation of why the increases were granted before instead of after the election, we do not believe that the Employer has satisfied the burden of showing that the granting of the increases was timed for reasons other than to influence the election results. See Glosser Bros., Inc., 120 NLRB 965, 966-967. Detroit Mailers Union No. 4, International Mailers Union and Detroit Gravure Corporation . Case No. 7-CD-92. March 3, 1964 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following a charge filed by Detroit Gravure Corporation, herein called the Em- ployer, alleging that Detroit Mailers Union No. 4, International Mailers Union, herein called 'the Mailers, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D), by threatening, coercing, or restraining the Employer for purposes of compelling it to assign certain work to employees represented by the Mailers, rather than to employees represented by Detroit Paper Handlers' and Plate Handlers' Union No. 10, Inter- 146 NLRB No. 23.