Coffey's Transfer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 888 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) All production and maintenance employees, excluding 0,11 em-
ployees included in unit (b), below, all office clerical and laboratory
employees, guards, watchmen, foremen, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) All truckdrivers and warehouse employees, including the receiv-
ing clerk,7 but excluding all other employees, the traffic manager, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
7 The Employer would exclude , and Teamsters include, the receiving clerk. The duties
of the receiving clerk are to receive any raw materials or goods coming into the plant and
keep records of the foregoing . We find that the receiving clerk is a plant clerical em-
ployee and shall include him in the warehouse unit.
Coffey's Transfer Company , Petitioner and International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, General Drivers and Helpers, Local No. 554, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 17-RM-91. March 21,1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board in the above -entitled proceeding on December 12, 1955,1 an
election by secret ballot was conducted on January 24, 1956, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seven-
teenth Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate.
Following the election , a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties.
The tally shows that there were approximately 4 eligible voters in the
unit; that no votes were cast for or against the Union; and that there
were 7 challenged ballots.
On January 27, 1956, the Union. filed timely objections to the elec-
tion, alleging in substance that : ( 1) Holding and processing the elec-
tion while an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Union in
Case No . 17-CA-1072 was in existence was contrary to Board policy;
(2) at the time the election was held the time for filing an appeal
to the General Counsel from the Regional Director 's refusal to issue
a complaint in Case No. 17-CA-1072 had not yet expired and the
Union intended to appeal ; and (3 ) by holding the election at the
Employer 's place of business when picket lines had been established,
the Board in effect forced the strikers to go through a picket line
contrary to the traditional policy of the labor movement . After an
investigation , the Regional Director , on February 17, 1956, issued
and served upon the parties his report on objections and challenged
ballots, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled,
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
115 NLRB No. 138.
COFFEY'S TRANSFER COMPANY 889
that 3 of the challenges be sustained, and that 4 of the challenges be
overruled. The Union filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
As to the Union's first and second objections, the Regional Director
reported as follows : The unfair labor practice charge filed by the
Union in Case No. 17-CA-1072 related to conduct that allegedly
had occurred in September 1955, and was not filed until December 27,
1955, several days after the Regional Director had scheduled the elec-
tion for December 29, 1955. When the charge was filed, a 30-day
extension of the period for conducting the balloting was granted to
enable the Regional Director to investigate the charge. On January
18, 1956, after an investigation, the Acting Regional Director dis-
missed the charge because of insufficient evidence of violations of the.
Act, and thereafter rescheduled the election for January 24. On Jan-
uary 27 the Union filed a timely appeal from the refusal to issue a
complaint, and on February 16 the General Counsel sustained the
Acting Regional Director's action.
As a matter of policy, the Board does not ordinarily hold an election
while unfair labor practice charges are pending. In this case, how-
ever, at the time of the election the Regional Director had dismissed
the pending charge, and the General Counsel subsequently sustained
his action. We agree with the Regional Director that the fact that
the election was scheduled and held before the time for an appeal
had elapsed did not interfere with the employees' free choice in the
election.
As to the Union's third objection, that the election was held at
premises where the Union was picketing, the Regional Director found,
and we agree, that as all potential-voters cast ballots, it is obvious that
the picketing did not deter the voters from voting.
Under the circumstances, therefore, we agree with the Regional
Director that the Union's objections are without merit. Accordingly,
the objections are hereby overruled.- -
As to the challenges, the Regional Director reported as follows :
The Employer challenged the ballots of William Henley, Ed Jansa,
and James Faulhaber on the ground that these persons left their em-
ployment on September 20, 1955, to engage in an economic strike
against the Employer and were subsequently replaced by new em-
ployees. The Union challenged the ballots of Emil J. Severyn, How-
ard Shurts, Duane Graber, and Carvin Moreland, the replacements, on
the ground that Henley, Faulhaber, and Jansa were unfair labor
practice strikers, and could not lawfully be replaced. The Union also
asserted that Severyn is a supervisor.
The investigation showed that Henley, Faulhaber, and Jansa were
last employed by the Employer on September 19, 1955, as local truck-
drivers at the Employer's Omaha, Nebraska, terminal ; that the Union
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called a strike against the terminal on September 20, 1955; that Hen-
ley, Faulhaber, and Jansa have not been employed by the Employer
since September 19 and have not requested reemployment or reinstate-
ment; and that the strike has not been abandoned. Severyn was first
employed by the Employer in May 1950; until September 20, 1955,
he performed some work in the office and on the dock and otherwise
assisted the terminal manager, but since September 20, has been em-
ployed exclusively as a local driver. There is no indication that he
has supervisory authority over other drivers. We therefore find that
Severyn is not a supervisor as defined in the Act.
Shurts, Graber, and Moreland have been employed as local drivers
since September 26, October 3, and November 28, 1955, respectively.
According to the Employer, they were all told at the time of their
employment that they were hired as permanent employees.
As the General Counsel has refused to issue a complaint in Case
No. 17-CA-1072, we find that the strike that commenced on Septem-
ber 20, 1955, is an economic strike .2 Accordingly, as the strikers have
been permanently replaced, we find they were ineligible to vote in the
election herein. We therefore sustain the challenges to the ballots of
William Henley, Ed Jansa, and James Faulhaber.
As Emil J. Severyn, Howard Shurts, Duane Graber, and Carvin
Moreland were permanently employed by the Employer on the eligi-
bility date, we find that they were entitled to cote in the election.
Accordingly, we hereby overrule the challenges to their ballots, and
shall direct that these ballots be opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director shall, within ten
(10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots
of Emil J. Severyn, Howard Shurts, Duane Graber, and Carvin
Moreland, and serve upon the parties a revised tally of ballots.]
2 Tames Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361.
Meat & Provision Drivers Union, Local No. 626, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Help-
ers of America, AFL-CIO i and Lewis Food Company. Case No.
21-CC-190.2 March 22,1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 11, 1955, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
1 The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we
are amending the identification of the affiliation of the Respondent accordingly.
2 At the hearing , allegations in the complaint relating to violations of Section 8 (b)
(4) (C) of the Act by Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers, AFL-CIO, Local
115 NLRB No. 136.