Air Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 1338 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of AIR PRODUCTS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS (A. F. OF L.)
In the Matter of AIR PRODUCTS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS (A. F. OF L.) ; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION No. 910; UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CAR-
PENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION, No. 74
Cases Nos. 10---R-1248 and 10-RE-13, respectively
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
October 0, 1945
On May 5, 19,45, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tions," directing that separate elections be conducted among the elec-
tricians in Group 1, the carpenters in Group 2, the employees in the
testing department in Group 3, and the remaining production and
maintenance employees in Group 4 and reserving final decision as to the
appropriate bargaining units until after the elections. On June 1,1945,
the Board, as a result of elections conducted on May 24, 1945, issued its
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives, wherein
the IBEW was certified as the bargaining representative for the elec-
tricians, the Operating Engineers for the employees in the testing
department, and the IAM for all remaining production and mainte-
nance employees. On June 9, 1945, the IAM filed a motion requesting
reconsideration of the Board's Supplemental Decision and Certifi-
cation of Representatives for the reason that the Tally of Ballots with
respect to Groups 1 and 3, issued by the Regional Director on May 24,
1945, at the conclusion of the elections, failed to reflect the challenges
to the ballots of Joe B. Key and William H. Elrod, respectively. On
June 11, 1945, the Company also filed a petition requesting reconsid-
eration for similar reasons and reiterated its contention that a single
plant unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
On September 8, 1945, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to,
Article III, Sedtion 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 3, as amended, issued and duly served upon the
parties to the proceeding a Revised Tally of Ballots and Report on
Challenged Ballots in which he recommended that the Tally of Ballots
1 61 N. L. R. B. 943.
63 N. L. R. B., No. 207.
1338
AIR PRODUCTS, INC. 1339
for Groups 1 and 3 be revised so as to show 1 challenged ballot in each
of these groups, that the challenge with respect to William H. Elrod in
Group 3 be sustained, and that no determination was made with
respect to Joe B. Key. No exceptions to the Report on Challenged
Ballots have been filed by any of the parties.
According to the Regional Director's Report, Key and Elrod were
transferred to the Electrical and Testing departments, Groups 1 and
3, respectively, subsequent to the eligibility date governing the elec-
tion. At the time of the election each appeared on the Group 4 eligibil-
ity list, As a result of challenges to their ballots, Key was instructed
to cast a ballot in both Groups 1 and 4, and Elrod in both Groups 3
and 4, and their ballots were then impounded. The Tally of Ballots
issued at the conclusion of the election reflected such challenges only
in Group 4, whereas they should also have been reflected in Groups 1
.and 3. Accordingly, the Tally of Ballots for Groups 1 and 3 are
hereby amended to reflect 1 challenged ballot in each of such groups
in lieu of none. In consequence thereof, the Tally of Ballots in Group
3 now reveals that the challenge of Elrod's ballot in this group is
sufficient to affect the results of the election.2 However, inasmuch as
Elrod was not employed in Group 3 on the eligibility date, we concur
in the recommendation of the Regional Director and find that he was
ineligible to vote in that group. We therefore sustain the challenge
to his ballot and direct that it be not opened and counted.3
We have considered the requests of the Company and the fAM for
reconsideration and the same are hereby denied.
z The Tally of Ballots In Group 3 , as hereby amended, reveals that of 25 eligible voters,
15 valid votes were counted of which 6 were for the TAM, 8 for the Operating Engineers, 1
for neither , and 1 ballot was challenged.
3It is unnecessary for us to determine whether Elrod 's transfer to the testing depart-
ment was temporary or permanent for the purpose of determining his eligibility to vote
In Group 4 inasmuch as the challenges to the ballots in Group 4 are insufficient to affect
the results of the election in that group . Similarly , it is unnecessary to rule upon the
challenges to Key's ballots in Groups I and 4 inasmuch as such challenges are insufficient
to affect the results of the election in either of these groups.