Animal Trap Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1193 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

ANIMAL TRAP COMPANY OF AMERJCA 1193
but excluding the secretaries to the plant manager , the chief
engineer , the manager of the order department, the production
control manager , and the plant superintendent, sales employees,
technical employees, professional employees, employees inthe
personnel department , production and maintenance employees,
and the chief clerk of the purchasing department ' and other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'As noted above, the parties agree that this clerk should be excluded from the unit. It is
not clear , however, whether tliey agree to exclude her as a confidential employee or as a
supervisor . Because the record discloses that, inter alia , she hires employees, we find that
she is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and exclude her as such.
ANIMAL TRAP COMPANY OF AMERICA and DISTRICT NO. 98,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFI,, Pe-
titioner . Case No. 4-RC-2095. February 18, 1954.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On December 21, 1953 , pursuant to a Decision and Direction
of Election ' issued by the Board , an election by secret ballot
among the employees of the Employer, in the maintenance unit
found appropriate, was conducted under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director of the Fourth Region. The
tally of ballots showed that of 25 votes cast, 13 were for the
Petitioner , 6 against the Petitioner , and 6 were challenged. On
December 24, 1953, the Employer filed objections to the elec-
tion, alleging that: (1) The Board ' s agent exceeded the scope of
his authority in permitting to vote under challenge 3 individuals
whom the Board, in its Decision , excluded from the unit;' (2)
by such action the Board's agent enlarged upon the scope of
the unit; (3) this action could create a conflict between the
Employer and the Petitioner when collective -bargaining nego-
tiations begin; and ( 4) the presence in the voting room of these
3 individuals, 2 of whom the Employer asserts are super-
visors, could be deemed to be coercive and could have intimi-
dated other voters who were present.
After an investigation, the Regional Director on January 13,
1954, issued a report on objections, in which he found that even
assuming 2 of them were supervisors , there is no evidence that
1107 NLRB No. 58.
2 The Board excluded 2 of the individuals from the maintenance unit found appropriate be-
cause they are engaged solely in production work , and excluded the third individual because
he is engaged solely in developing new production equipment . The Board did not rule upon
the Employer's contention that 2 of them were supervisors.
107 NLRB No. 256.
1 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the presence of these 3 individuals at the polls had any coercive
effect upon the other voters or in anyway interfered with their
free choice in the selection of a bargaining representative. He
further found that the Employer's other objections also were
without merit; that the challenged ballots cannot affect the
results of the election; and recommended that the objections be
overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the exclusive
representative of the Employer's employees in the unit found
appropriate. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions
to the Regional Director's report. We find no merit in these
exceptions.
In its exceptions, the Employer renews its contention that
the 3 individuals who had been excluded by name from the unit
by the Board in its Decision should not have been permitted to
vote. While it would have been better practice for the Board
agent to refuse to permit them to vote, even under challenge,
as the Board had already ruled on their eligibility, we do not
consider the fact that they nevertheless were permitted to
vote in itself sufficient ground for setting aside the election.
The Employer contends further that the Petitioner has indicated
that, in view of the fact that the 3 had voted, it would be neces-
sary to redetermine the bargaining unit in negotiations between
the parties. We fail to see how this could occur inasmuch as
we have already determined that these 3 employees are ex-
cluded from the unit. The Employer urges, however, that if
the election is not set aside, the Board should remand the case
for further hearing on the supervisory status of 2 of these 3
employees and of 5 other leadmen, 3 of whom also voted under
challenge.' In our opinion, no useful purpose would be served
by holding a further hearing with respect to such of these
leadmen (4 in number) as were expressly excluded from the
unit in the Board's Decision herein. As to the remaining 3
leadmen, as to whose unit placement the Board reserved
decision pending the outcome of the election, it is not generally
the Board's policy to resolve unit placement in such cases un-
less the votes of the employees involved could affect the result
of the election. As the votes of these 3 could not alter the out-
come of the election, the Employer's request for a remand is
denied.
As the tally of ballots shows that a majority of the valid
votes have been cast for the Petitioner, and as the challenged
ballots cannot affect the results of the election, the Board will
certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified District No. 98, International Associa-
tion of Machinists, AFL, as the designated collective-bargain-
3 These three are Buchter, Kemper, and Walters. Because of the dearth of evidence in the
record on their supervisory status, the Board's Decision and Direction of Election herein
provided that they vote under challenge, subject to further investigation of their status if their
votes were determinative of the outcome of the election.
LAND O'SUN DAIRIES, INC. 1195
ing representative of the employees in the unit found to be
appropriate at the Employer's Lititz, Pennsylvania, plant.
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa-
tives.
LAND O'SUN DAIRIES, INC. and ALBERT P. B. KERR, EUGENE
E. RHODES AND MYER GOLDBERG, Petitioners and TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
LOCAL NO. 390, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 10-RD-138. Feb-
ruary 18, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John S. Patton,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The Petitioners assert that the Union, which has been cer-
tified and is being currently recognized by the Employer as the
bargaining representative , is no longer a representative as de-
fined by Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerningthe rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the
following reasons:
The Union contends that a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer covering the employees involved herein, which
is effective until July 1, 1954, is a bar to this proceeding. On July
1, 1950, the Employer and the Union entered into a 2-year bar-
gaining agreement, renewable annually thereafter unless written
notice to terminate or modify was given by either party at least
60 days before any anniversary date. In July 1952, the contract-
ing parties entered into an agreement which provided that certain
modifications of the 1950 contract which were still being negoti-
ated would "be added to this agreement by way of addenda thereto
.... Any such addenda shall be effective from July 1, 1952 to June
30, 1953, unless such addendaprovide otherwise." OnAugust 5,
1952, the parties signed such an addendum, modifying some of
the substantive provisions of the agreement.
No notice of intention to terminate or modify was given by
either party prior to May 1, 1953, the operative date of the
automatic renewal clause, although the Union failed to do so
only through a clerical oversight. On June 5, 1953, the Union
informed the Employer that it wished to negotiate certain
107 NLRB No. 253.