Boland Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 3 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BOLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, A. F. OF L.,
PETITIONER
Cases Nos . 18-RC-347 and 18-RC-353
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
.
AND
DIRECTION
March 28, 1950
On June 28, 1949, pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of
Election,' an election was held among certain employees of Boland
Manufacturing Company at its two plants in Winona and Wabasha,
Minnesota, under the direction of the Regional Director for the Eigh-
teenth Region. Thereafter, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties, which showed that of approximately 212 eligible voters, 192
cast valid ballots, of which 95 were for and 97 against the Petitioner,
and 26 ballots were challenged.
On July 1, 1949, the Petitioner filed objections, and on July 6, 1949,
supplemental objections. Thereupon, in accordance with the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion, and issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Chal-
lenges and Objections, in which he recommended that a hearing be
held on the challenges and objections. No exceptions having been
filed to the Regional Director's Report, the Board, having duly con-
sidered the matter, on August 2, 1949, directed the Regional Director
to hold a hearing for the purpose of determining the issues raised by
the challenges and objections.
The hearing was held on August 22, 1949, before Max Rotenberg,
hearing officer. The Petitioner and the Employer appeared and par-
ticipated. On January 13, 1949, the hearing officer issued his Report
on Challenges. and Objections to Election, in which he recommended
that 6 of the challenges be overruled and 20 sustained, and that the 6
ballots to which challenges were overruled be opened and counted. He
further recommended that if, after counting these ballots, it should be
necessary to pass upon the objections, certain of the Petitioner's ob-
I Boland Manufacturing Company, 83 NLRB 1254.
89 NLRB No. 30.
889227-51-vol. 89-2
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jections should be sustained and the election set aside. The Peti-
tioner and the Employer have filed exceptions to the hearing officer's
Report on Challenges and Objections to Election.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board, having considered the
Report on Challenges and Objections to Election, and the exceptions
filed by the Petitioner and the Employer, hereby adopts the hearing
officer's findings and conclusions as to the challenges except insofar
as they are inconsistent with this Decision and Direction. No rulings
will be made on the objections unless it becomes necessary to do so
after counting the five ballots to which challenges are overruled here-
inbelow.
Margaret Grochowski, Pauline Kukowski, Agnes McGuire, Frieda
Neinow, Verna Park, Hazel Pelowski, Mary Peters, Abina Selke,
Bernice Thilmany, and Esther Trzebiatowski: The hearing officer
sustained the challenges to the ballots of these individuals on the
ground that they had been laid off with no reasonable expectation of
reemployment in the near future. The Petitioner has excepted. The
Employer maintains that these individuals were permanently termi-
nated on March 3, 1949, together with 16 other employees of the 85
in the sewing department. We agree with the hearing officer's finding
that on March 3, the Employer indicated to the sewing machine opera-
tors who were laid off that their separation was temporary.3 How-
ever, during March and April, the Employer effected certain changes
in its production process with the result that 63 sewing machines were
removed from the plant and heat sealing machines installed in their
place. Between March 1 and May 1, the number of heat sealing
machine operators was increased from 7 to 17, and that number re-
mained fairly constant up to the time of the reopened hearing. By
the time of that hearing, none of the sewing machines had been re-
stored, none of the employees laid off on March 3 had been called back
to work, and no new sewers had been employed. From these facts,
it appears that whatever the Employer's plans and statements may have
been early in March, it became committed sometime before the eligi-
bility date to the use of heat sealing rather than sewing equipment
on some of its products, and no longer required the services of the
employees laid off on March 3. We find that the employment of the
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
(Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
3 Although the hearing officer makes no finding in that respect, we also credit the testi-
mony of Petitioner's organizer, Golvin Street, that on March 7, 1949, he was assured by
the Employer's superintendent, Reibman, that the :March 3 separations were in the nature
of temporary layoffs.
BOLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 5
above-named individuals was permanently terminated sometime
before the eligibility date, and that they therefore were not entitled
to vote. Accordingly, we find that the challenges to their ballots
should be, and they hereby are, sustained.
Olga Rolo ff : The hearing officer found that on the eligibility date,
Roloff was on leave of absence and therefore eligible to vote. The
Employer has excepted. We do not agree with the hearing officer's
finding. Roloff, who had been employed in the sewing department,
was laid off at the same time as the employees named in the preceding
paragraph. At the time of her layoff, she offered to call Reibman,
the plant superintendent, in 3 weeks, and was told to do so. When
she inquired about work at that time, none was available. On April
11, 1949, she was referred to the Employer by the Division of Employ-
ment and Security of the State of Minnesota, and was offered work
on the night shift, which she was unable to accept because of illness
in her family. She requested a leave of absence, which was refused
by Reibman. She again offered to call Reibman at a later date to
check on whether or not work was available, and was told to do so.
In view of these circumstances, we disagree with the hearing officer's
finding that Roloff was on leave of absence, and find that her position
was not materially different from that of the above-named employees.
Accordingly, we sustain the challenge to her ballot.
Leo Strong: The hearing officer recommended that the Petitioner's
challenge to this employee's ballot be overruled. As the Petitioner
did not except to the hearing officer's ruling, we hereby adopt it, over-
rule the challenge to Leon Strong's ballot, and shall direct that his
ballot be opened and counted.
Pearl Norton, Bertha Marx, Francis Bolderman, and Minnie
Staizecki: The hearing officer overruled the Employer's challenges to
the ballots of these employees, finding that on the eligibility date they
were on leave of absence on account of their illness or illness in their
families. The Employer has excepted. As the hearing officer states
in his Report, it appears that the Employer readily granted leaves of
absence in case of illness of an employee or in an employee's family,
and the right to reinstatement was retained by keeping the Employer's
supervisors informed of an intention to return. All the employees in
this group had so notified their supervisors, and had been given to
understand by their supervisors that they could return.4 Accordingly,
we affirm the hearing officer's ruling on the ballots of Norton, Marx,
' When Marx reported for work after family illness no longer required her presence at
home , she was told that no work was then available . According to her uncontradicted and
corroborated testimony , she was then given an extension of her leave . Norton reported
for work on June 6 , 1948 , and was working at the time of the election . Bolderman and
Staizecki had not yet reported for work at the time of the election.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bolderman, and Staizecki, hereby overrule the challenges to their
ballots, and shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted.
Leslie Bob Strong: The hearing officer sustained the challenge to the
ballot of this employee. The Employer has excepted. The record
sustains the hearing officer's finding that Leslie Bob Strong shared
with Floorlady Kruger, an admitted supervisor, a substantial part
of the supervision of the sewing room at the Employer's Wabasha
plant. He exercised such supervisory authority as assigning and
directing the work of the sewing room employees, laying off employees
for the day when no work was available, transferring employees from
one task to another, and occasionally disciplining employees. Accord-
ingly, we affirm the hearing officer's ruling that Leslie Bob Strong was
a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, and
hereby sustain the challenge to his ballot.
Ruth, Buerck, Marilyn Frie, Florence Harders, Mary Mayer, Arlene
Viestenz, and Betty Lou. Wamho ff : The hearing officer sustained the
challenges to the ballots of these employees on the ground that they
were temporary employees not entitled to vote. The Employer has
excepted.
The Employer had hired these 6 girls, who were high school stu-
dents, and 14 others, most of .whom were students, in April 1949 to do
inspection work on the "night shift," which consisted of 3 hours of
work daily after school hours. On June 8, 1949, the Employer abol-
ished the "night shift" and, the school year having ended, transferred
the 6 students herein involved to work on a full-time basis.5 This
occurred 5 days after the eligibility date for the election. On July 5,
1949, about a week after the election, all 6 of these girls were laid off.
There is no evidence in the record that the Employer had intended,
when he hired these girls, to retain them as permanent full-time em-
ployees, or even as regular part-time employees, nor that he intended,
when he laid them off, to rehire them at any time in the near future.
In view of their indefinite status while employed on the "night shift"
on the eligibility date, and in view of the question as to the likelihood
of their being reemployed, we affirm the hearing officer's finding that
Buerck, Frie, Harders, Mayer, Viestenz, and Wamhoff were temporary
employees not entitled to vote, and hereby sustain the challenges to
their ballots.6
E It does not appear from the record whether the other 14 employees were laid off or
permanently separated.
6 Joseph M. Las8onde, 80 NLRB 1387.
The Petitioner excluded part-time employees from the unit sought in its petition, and
the Employer did not object to such exclusion. As the record of the bearing on the peti-
tion did not, however, indicate any reason for such exclusion, the Board, pursuant to its
policy of including regular part-time employees in bargaining units, included part-time
employees in the unit found appropriate in its Decision and Direction of Election of June
BOLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 7
Frances Pate'ner, Pauline Kulas, and Celia Kling: The hearing offi-
cer sustained the Employer's challenges to the ballots of these em-
ployees. As the Petitioner did not except to this ruling, we adopt the
hearing off'icer's findings and hereby sustain the challenges to the
ballots of these employees.
DIRECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Boland Manufacturing Com-
pany, Winona and Wabasha, Minnesota,
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that the Regional Director for the Eighteenth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the challenged ballots cast by Leo Strong, Pearl Nor-
ton, Bertha Marx, Francis Bolderman, and Minnie Staizecki, and shall
thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Supple-
mental Tally of Ballots, including therein the count of these chal-
lenged ballots.
7, 1949. On September 27, 1949, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification of Unit
Description, requesting that part-time employees be excluded from the unit found appro-
priate. It appeared at the hearing on the challenges and objections that the Petitioner's
motion referred to the above -named temporary employees. As our ruling on the challenges
clarifies the eligibility of these employees , the Petitioner's motion is hereby denied.