Beaumont Forging Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 2200 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

2200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of eligible employees voted in the election conducted in the present
proceeding and it does not appear that any nonvoter failed to vote
because of the Employer's alleged withdrawal of its permission to vote
during working time, we find no ground for setting aside the election.8
The results of the election held on September 15, 1954, show that the
required majority of eligible voters have not cast ballots in favor of
the union-shop deauthorization. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
8 The Board has repeatedly ruled that , absent unusual circumstances , the failure of
eligible voters to cast ballots in Section 9 (c) representation elections was not cause for
setting aside the results of such elections where a representative number of employees
have voted Despite the strict statutory requirement in Section 9 (e) (1) elections, that
a majority of those eligible to vote is necessary to support union -shop deauthorizations,
Ke do not believe the rule should be different in Section 9 (e) (1) elections See Shell
Oil Company ( Bulk Plant ), 79 NLRB 1255 , at 1256
BEAUMONT FORGING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIP BUILDERS , BLACKSMITHS , FORGERS AND
HELPERS, LOCAL 587, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC-855.
December 30,1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Under a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clifford W.
Potter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 em-
ployees of the Employer. The Employer refused to stipulate that
the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
We find that the Petitioner is a labor organization, as it exists for
the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining with the Employer
with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
3. The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed
upon the ground that the Petitioner is not qualified to represent em-
ployees of the Employer due to the participation of W. R. Dennis,
an alleged supervisor, in the Petitioner's affairs.
As regards the supervisory status of Dennis, the record reveals that
Dennis is foreman of the forge shop in the Employer's plant, and is in
complete charge of its operation when both the president and super-
intendent of the plant are absent. As foreman, Dennis assigns the
specific operation each man in the department is to perform. The
110 NLRB No. 275.
BEAUMONT FORGING COMPANY 2201
evidence shows that Dennis has effectively recommended that em-
ployees be hired, discharged, and promoted, in that his suggestions
regarding such matters are accorded great weight by the Employer
and have been followed in the past. We find, on the basis of the fore-
going, that Dennis is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
There remains the further question as to whether the activities of
Dennis have so infected the Petitioner with "managerial taint" that
the Petitioner is disqualified from acting as a bargaining representa-
tive. In this regard, it appears that Dennis has been a member of the
Boilermaker's union for 12 years and has attended meetings of the
local involved in the instant proceeding. There is no evidence that
Dennis spoke at these meetings or actively solicited membership in
the Union. From September 8 to October 8, 1954, the employees were
on strike against the Employer. At that time, Dennis stood on the
picket line. He also called the Employer on the telephone and said
in substance that the employees wished to return to work. The Em-
ployer refused to deal with Dennis; instead, he replied that he would
inform the Employer's attorney to contact the agent of the Petitioner.
In the absence of evidence that a supervisor had solicited employees
for membership in the Union, the Board has frequently found that the
particular circumstances did not warrant dismissing the petition for
an election, even though the supervisor may have participated in cer-
tain union activities.' In the present instance, we believe that Dennis'
membership in the Union, his attendance at union meetings, his ac-
tivity on the picket line, and his attempted negotiation with the Em-
ployer, do not in themselves require a finding that the Petitioner is
tainted by managerial support. We find, therefore, that the Peti-
tioner is not disqualified from acting as a bargaining representative.
4. The Employer also contends that the petition should be dismissed
on the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate.
The Petitioner seeks a production and maintenance unit at the Em-
ployer's plant. The Employer's plant is divided into a machine shop
and a forge shop. These departments have separate locations, re-
quire different skills, and do not interchange employees. There is no
prior history of collective bargaining. On the basis of the foregoing,
the Employer argues that 2 units, 1 for each department, are appro-
priate.' We find no merit in the Employer's contention.
A plant unit, being one of the unit types listed in the statute as
appropriate for bargaining purposes, is presumptively appropriate,
and should, other things being equal, prevail over other unit types
I The S-P Manufacturing Corporation, 75 NLRB 701, at 703, Jackson Daily News, 86
NLRB 729 , Allen B Dumont Laboratories, Inc, 88 NLRB 1296, at 1296, Ti enton Foods,
Inc, 101 NLRB 1769, at 1776 Cf. The Toledo Stamping d Manufacturing Company, 55
NLRB 865. at 867; Desila Productions, Inc., 106 NLRB 179.
2It is to be noted that no labor organization is here seeking either a departmental or
craft unit
2202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not designated in the statute.3 Accordingly, where it is not affirma-
tively shown that a smaller unit is the more appropriate, the Board
will not refuse to grant the broader unit requested by the petitioning
labor organization."
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following em-
ployees of the Employer at its Beaumont, Texas, plant, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 8
All production and maintenance employees, but excluding all office
clerical employees, engineers, draftsmen, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors 6 as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 Hygrade Food Products Corporation, 85 NLRB 841, at 848.
4 Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 98 NLRB 1018, at 1032.
5 Except as to W. R. Dennis and Louis Palombo, the unit is agreed upon by the parties.
6 As noted above we find W. R. Dennis to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Likewise, we find Louis Palombo, foreman of the machine shop, and having authority and
duties analogous to those of Dennis, to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Accordingly, W. R. Dennis and Louis Palombo are excluded from the production and
maintenance unit.
THE STICKLESS CORPORATION and NEW YORK PRINTING PRESSMEN'S
UNION No. 51, NEW YORK PRESS ASSISTANTS UNION No. 23, PAPER
CUTTERS LOCAL UNION AND BOOKBINDERS, LOCAL 119, IBB, AND
BINDERY WOMEN'S UNION No. 43, AFL , PETITIONERS. Case No.
2-RC-7067. December 31,1951
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 H. E. Knowlton, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Employer's contention that the Petitioners are not labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of the Act is not borne out by the
record. We find that the labor organizations 1 involved claim to rep-
resent employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
I Local 148, Production & Sales Employees Union, APL, hereinafter referred to as Inter-
venor, was properly permitted to intervene herein, all the parties stipulated to its statue
as a labor organization.
110 NLRB No. 273.