Brown-Ely Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BROWN-ELY Co., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 95, LODGE No. 238,
PETITIONER
Case No. e 0-RC--565
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 8,1950
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 dated November
14, 1949, an election by secret ballot was held on December 8, 1949,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional,Director for the
Twentieth Region, among the employees described in the Decision.
Upon the completion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was duly issued
and served upon the parties which showed that five valid ballots were
cast. Of these, two were for the Petitioner; none were for the Inter-
venor, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, of the International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL; and three 2 were challenged by
the Board agent because the names of the voters involved did not
appear on the official eligibility list. No objections to the conduct of
the election were filed within the time provided therefor.
As "the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director investigated the chal-
lenges and on December 19, 1949, issued and duly served upon the
parties his Report on Challenged Ballots. The Regional Director rec-
ommended that the challenges to the three ballots be sustained. The
Intervenor filed timely exceptions 3 to the Regional Director's Report
and a brief 4 in support of its position that the three ballots should
be counted.
1 87 NLRB 27.
8 These ballots were cast by employees Otto Bortfeld, Allen McClure, and Harry Cahill.
8 The document submitted by the Intervenor is styled as "Objections To The Report On
Challenged Ballots." However, it appears intended as exceptions to the Regional Director's
recommendation that the challenges be sustained and we are, therefore, treating it as
exceptions rather than objections.
* Although this was in the form of a letter, it contained additional information offered
to support the Intervenor's position and we are therefore considering it to be in the nature
of a brief.
88 NLRB No. 137. 577
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In its Decision and Direction of Election , the Board found that the
appropriate unit could consist of the shop mechanics at the Employer's
Corte Madera, California , repair shop. The three employees chal-
lenged by the Board agent are employed as regular operators of vari-
ous kinds of heavy duty equipment . The Intervenor contends that
these operators , who are classified as operator mechanics and normally
perform their duties in the field , are eligible to vote because they make
repairs on their own equipment.
We find no merit in the Intervenor 's contention . The employees
iii question are primarily engaged in performing the duties of oper-
ators . They are not shop mechanics as that term was used in our
definition of the voting group. Although , as indicated in our Deci-
sion, they make repairs on their equipment and are occasionally as-
sisted by the shop machanics , such work is incidental to their principal
job of operating equipment and does not in and of itself constitute
them a part of the voting group . Nor does the fact that , during the
winter season which represents only about 25 percent of the working
year , these operators are assigned to tasks in the shop, identify their
interests more closely with the shop mechanics than with the other
operators presently represented by the Intervenor .5
Although the Intervenor 's exceptions may be regarded as a motion
to clarify the unit which in the Decision the Board found might be
appropriate, we are of the opinion that , in the light of the above com-
ments, such Decision sufficiently indicates the scope of that unit with-
out any amendment thereof. To the extent , therefore, that the
"motion for clarification" seeks an amendment of the aforesaid unit
description , it is hereby denied.
In view of the foregoing, we hereby affirm the Regional Director's
Report and sustain the challenges to the ballots of Otto Bortfeld,
Allen McClure, and Harry Cahill . In its Decision and Direction of
Election , the Board made no final determination as to the appropriate
unit. The Board said :
If the employees in the voting group [shop mechanics ] select
the Petitioner , they will be taken to have indicated a desire to
constitute a separate bargaining unit.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that all shop mechanics at the Employer 's Corte Madera,
California , repair shop , excluding all other employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
' See Strong Company , 87 NLRB 1360.
BROWN-ELY CO. 579
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
As the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid ballots cast
in the election, we shall certify it as the bargaining representative in
the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists,
District No. 95, Lodge No. 238, has been designated and selected by
a majority of all shop mechanics at the Employer's Corte Madera,
California, repair shop, excluding all other employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
882191-51-38