Aluminum Co.

SECURITY ALUMINUM COMPANY 581 C. The issue of reinstatement There is agreement that Don Gillingham was reemployed by the Respondent on June 25 , 1962, and terminated again on August 4, 1962. There is disagree- ment as to whether this reemployment constituted compliance with the Board and court order of reinstatement. The evidence fully supports General Counsel's contention that the Board order requiring reinstatement has not yet been complied with. When Don Gillingham was rehired he was not put back on his original or any other driver-salesman job, but was assigned to such tasks as painting pipes, cutting grass and weeds, and according to Millstead was let go in August when there was no more work for him to do of this nature. D. Conclusions The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent has failed to meet its burden of presenting credible evidence to refute or modify the backpay specification. The attached summary of such specification is adopted in full by the Trial Examiner, and appears marked "Appendix." Upon all the foregoing findings and conclusions , including the adopting of the specification, it is concluded that the obligations of the Respondent as of September 30, 1963, to make whole employee Don Gillingham will be dis- charged by payment to him of the amount of $9,846.07, plus an undetermined amount of backpay from October 1, 1963 , to the data of a valid offer of reinstate- ment, less any tax withholdings as required by Federal, State, and local law. APPENDIX Year and quarter Weekly salary Number of weeks Gross backpay Net interim earnings Net backpay 1961-1------------------------------------ $105.00 236 $273.00 6 $273.00 1961-2------------------------------------ 105. 00 13 1,365. 00 0 1,365.00 1961-3------------------------------------ 105 00 13 1,365.00 $64 00 1,301.00 1961-4--- -------------------------------- 105.00 13 { 1,365.00 } 156.60 1,233 40 25.00 1962-1----------------------------------- - 105.00 13 1,365.00 921 39 443.61 1962-2--- --------------------------------- 105.00 13 1,365 00 135 00 1,230.00 1962-3------------------------------------ 105 00 13 1,365 00 525 00 840.00 1962--4---------------------------------- -- 105.00 13 65 00 { 1,3 } 50.40 1,339.60 25 00 1963-1 ------------------------------------ { 105.00 1 ------------ ------------ 114.40 12 1 , 477 80 1,056 . 32 421.48 1963-2------------------------------------ 114.40 13 1,487 20 740.27 746.93 1963-3------------------------ ------------ 114 40 13 1,487.20 835.15 652 05 Total net backpay ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 9,846.07 Security Aluminum Company and Truckdrivers and Helpers Union Local No. 164, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, Ind., Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-6265. November 6, 196. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer James R. McCormick. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 149 NLRB No. 61. 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.,- 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the A.ct : 2 All production and maintenance employees at the Jackson, Michi- gan, plant, including truckdrivers, but excluding temporary summer students, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed on various grounds, based in substance on the Regional Director's al- leged errors in certain other representation and complaint cases. We find no merit in these contentions. The Employer also contends, in effect, that a valid election was held on January 30, 1964, and that Section 9(c) (3) of the Act con- sequently serves to prohibit the Board from directing another elec- tion for a 12-month period thereafter. On February 27, 1964, however, the Acting Regional Director issued an order, in substance invalidating the election. No timely request for review of this order was filed with the Board, as provided by the Board's Rules and Regu- lations Series 8, as amended. On May 7, 1964, the Acting Regional Director advised the parties that the instant petition would be proc- essed. On May 13, 1964, the Employer filed a request for review of this and other rulings of the Acting Regional Director. On May 21, 1964, the Board denied the request of the Employer. We find, in these circumstances, that the election of January 30, 1964, was not a valid election. We further find no merit in the Em- ployer's contention based on Section 9(c) (3). [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 1 The request of United Steelworkers of America , AFI-C10, to withdraw as the inter- vening party is granted. 2 This unit was stipulated to by the parties.