Snap-out Binding & Folding, Inc.

SNAP-OUT BINDING & FOLDING, INC. 161 cals, professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 2. At all times material the Union has been and still is the exclusive representa- tive of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 3. By refusing since September 1, 1965, to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act. 4 By threats of reprisals for engaging in concerted activities and for giving a statement to a Board agent , and by statements calculated to impiess upon employ- ees the futility of collective bargaining, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The strike of Respondent 's employees , called on July 26, 1965, was caused by Respondent's unfair labor practices. 6. Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act by rejecting the reinstatement requests of striking employees received on September 15 and October 8. [Recommended Order omitted from publication ] Snap-out Binding & Folding, Inc., Automated Folding & Binding Co. and Local 63-63A, International Brotherhood of Bookbind- ers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-9894. Jule 10, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 28, 1966, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 21. A tally of the ballots showed that of approximately 45 eligible voters, 15 cast ballots for, and 15 against, the Petitioner, 9 cast challenged ballots, and 1 cast a void ballot. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Peti- tioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on May 10, 1966, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots and objections to election. In his report, the Regional Direc- tor recommended that two of the challenges to ballots be overruled, that six of the challenges be sustained, and that the ruling on one ballot be reserved until the National Labor Relations Board makes a determination of the voter's status in a pending unfair labor practice proceeding. He further recommended that certain of the objections 160 NLRB No. 6. 257-551-67-vol . 160-12 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to conduct affecting the election should be sustained and that if a revised tally showed that the Petitioner had not received a majority of the votes cast, the election of January 28, 1966, should be set aside and a new election conducted. Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions to four of the challenges sustained by the Regional Director, but did not file exceptions to his rulings as to the remaining challenges or as to the objections to the election. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman 'McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria]. The Board has considered the entire record in this case and'makes the following findings : 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 Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees, as stipulated by the parties, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All bindery employees, shipping and receiving employees, and delivery drivers at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, plants, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. After due consideration of the Regional Director's report and the Employer's exceptions thereto, we adopt all of the Regional Director's findings and recommendations in regard to the challenged ballots, with the exception of the ballot cast by Oswald Fernandez, Jr. Fernandez, Junior was first employed by the Employer continu- ously from the week ending October 2,1965, to the week ending Decem- ber 4, 1965, when he became ill and was placed on sick leave. .His doctor authorized him to return to work on January 10, 1966, but he was told by his father, a supervisor at the Employer's plant, that he was not needed because work was slow. Fernandez, Junior voted in the election on January 28. Although Fernandez states that he'did not work on that clay, the payroll record indicates that he *orked for 2 Hours. He was recalled on February 1 and worked 'a full day on SNAP-OUT BINDING & FOLDING, INC. 163 that date as well as on February 2, after which he was laid off. He was recalled again during the week ending March 19 and was still working on March 25, the day he was interviewed by a Board agent. The Regional Director concluded that, as of the date of the elec- tion, Fernandez had no reasonable expectancy of reemployment of a permanent or regular nature within the for future, and was therefore ineligible to vote in the election. However, the evidence persuades us that Fernandez in fact had such a reasonable expectancy as- of the election date. Prior to his illness, Fernandez had a sub- stantial employment history of two consecutive months in late 1965, and was regarded by the Employer as being on sick leave as of the week ending December 4. When -he was released by his doctor on January 10, there was no work immediately available for him, but the Employer's intention to reemploy him is manifested by the later recall for February 1 and 2, and the still later recall, for an indefinite period, during,.the week ending March 19. The Employer's preelec- tion experience with Fernandez had apparently been satisfactory, and his postelection recalls are significant evidence of the fact that, as of the election date, Fernandez could have reasonably expected to be rehired when , work became available. We therefore find that Oswald Fernandez, Jr. was an eligible voter, and we shall order that his challenged ballot be opened and counted. The Regional Director has further recommended that 3 of the Petitioner's 12 objections to conduct affecting the election be sus- tained. The Employer has not excepted to these recommendations, and we hereby adopt them. Accordingly, in the event that, upon the opening and counting of ballots authorized herein, the Petitioner does not receive a majority of the ballots cast, the election will be set aside, and a second election held. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining among employees of Snap-Out Binding & Folding Inc. and Automated Folding & Binding Co., Los Angeles, California, in the unit' set 'forth in the stipulation for certification upon consent election, the Regional Director shall, within 10 days from the date of this Order, open and count the ballots of William Margolin, Mary Santiago, and Oswald Fernandez, Jr., prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a revised, tally of ballots,. and issue a certification of repre- I Respondent's brief 'asserts that he was still employed a§ of May 25, the date which the brief bears 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentative or conduct a new election, as may be appropriate pursuant to this Decision and according to the results shown by the revised tally. In the event, however, that the revised tally shows that the challenged ballot of Ervin Frederick would be determinative of the election, the Regional Director shall await the National Labor Rela- tions Board's determination of Frederick's status in the unfair labor practice proceeding in which it is alleged that Frederick is a dis- criminatee under Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. If Frederick is found to be a discriminatee, the Regional Director shall open and count his ballot, prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a second revised tally of ballots, and issue a certification of representative or conduct a new election, as may be appropriate according to the results shown by the second revised tally. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that , insofar as required by the pro- cedure described in this Order, the election of January 28, 1966, among the unit of employees hereinbefore set out, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Crane Packing Co. and International Union , United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 13-RC-10865. July 12, 1966 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, executed April 20, 1966, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 12, 1966, under the direction of the Regional Director for Region 13 among employees in an agreed unit. Upon the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 613 eligible voters, 188 cast ballots for, and 339 against, the participating labor organization, and 57 ballots were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. After an investigation, the Regional Director issued his report on objections to election and recommendations, in which he recom- mended that objection 1 be sustained, and that the election be set aside and a new election ordered. The Employer filed timely excep- 160 NLRB No. 15.