Crane Carrier Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 756 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not, we find, convey the impression of governmental endorsement
of the Petitioner, District 50, or of the petition for decertification of
the Union, and, thus did not fall within the proscription of Allwd
Electne Products, Inc 8 Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Re-
gional Director, that objection No 3 is without merit, and it is hereby
overruled. '
In view of the foregoing, we grant the Petitioner's request and over-
rule the Union's objections in their entirety
As the remaining unresolved four challenged ballots cannot affect
the results of the, election, we need not consider the merits of those
challenges Consequently, as we have overruled the objections and as
the Union failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots cast, we
-shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that Industrial Union of Marme $a Shipbuild-
ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union 32 was not
selected by a majority of employees in the appropriate unit
8109 NLRB 1270 , of Strafford Furniture Corporation , et al , 116 NLRB 1721 , adopt-
ing the finding and recommendation of the Regional Director set forth at page 1723
Crane Carrier Corporation and Local 790, International Associa-
tion of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No 16-RC-
2266 A^cgust 29, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated March 24,
1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 17, 1958, by
the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the employees
in the unit found appropriate by the Board Following the election,
a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which shows that of 86
ballots cast, 42 were for the Petitioner, 42 were against the Petitioner,
and 2 were challenged On April 24,1958, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the election
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the challenges and objections,
and ion May 26, 1958, issued his report on challenged ballots and ob-
jections, recommending that one of the objections be sustained and
that the challenges to the ballots of Raymond Campbell and Birt Gray
be overruled. The Employer thereafter filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's recommendations concerning the one objection
and the challenge to Gray's ballot.
1 Unpublished
121 NLRB No 89
CRANE CARRIER CORPORATION 757
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins].
We have considered the Regional Director's report and the Em-
ployer's exceptions. The Regional Director's investigation reveals
that Gray was one of 30 employees laid off in February 1958 as the
result of an economic reduction in force. At the time of the layoff,
these employees including Gray were notified by,a letter dated Febru-
ary 10, 1958, that they would be given a written notice of recall when
the Employer was able to resume normal operations. However, on
March 24,1958, the Employer sent Gray a letter stating that it would
be necessary to discontinue its contribution to certain insurance bene-
fits because ". . . business has not improved . . . we are unable to
see improved business conditions which would justify our recalling
our laid-off men in the near future." The Regional Director states
that one-half of the laid-off employees had been recalled by the date
of the election to fill vacancies created by normal turnover and to
staff the machine shop when it was placed into operation. The Re-
gional Director further stated that on the day of- the election Gray
was told by a vice president of the Employer that business had in-
creased to a point where he thought it would be possible to recall Gray,
but the increase was short lived and that at that time he was unable to
determine when Gray could expect employment. The Regional
Director concluded that there was a reasonable expectancy of employ-
ment for Gray in the near future.
The Employer in its exceptions denies that the vice president made
the foregoing statement to Gray and contends that its letter of March
24, 1958, converted the layoff into a discharge. It is clear from the
foregoing letter that there was no definite prospect of improved busi-
ness conditions which provided a reasonable expectancy of Gray's
employment in the near future. Assuming that the vice president
did make the statement attributed to him, we find that it does not
indicate a reasonable expectancy of employment in the foreseeable
future. Likewise no such indication may be inferred under the cir-
cumstances from the fact that other laid-off employees had been re-
turned to work as the result of turnover and the restaffing of the
machine shop.' Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Regional Di-
rector, that Gray is not eligible to vote in the election. However,
because no exception was taken to the Regional Director's recom-
mendation concerning Campbell's ballot, we shall direct the Regional
Director to open and count his ballot. As the counting of this ballot
may determine the results of the election, we shall defer ruling on
whether or not to adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that
one of the objections be sustained.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballot of Raymond Campbell and serve upon the
parties a supplemental tally of ballots.]
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-1208. Sep-
tember 4, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 6, 1958, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the Intervenor, United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.' The Respondent also, requested oral
argument. The request is hereby denied, as the record and briefs, in
our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the
1 On April 7 , 1958, the Board issued an order granting the Intervenor an opportunity
to file exceptions and a brief . We hereby deny the Intervenor 's request to reopen the
record to adduce evidence with respect to the status of the charging union as a "tradi-
tional representative" of craft employees , an issue which was fully litigated in Case
No 5-RC-2088, 117 NLRB 1728, which proceeding is part of the record in the instant
case. Moreover , the Intervenor was a party to that proceeding and participated fully
therein.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Leedom and
Members Bean and Jenkins].
s At the hearing in this case , as in the representation proceeding in Case No . 5-RC-2088,
the Respondent sought to introduce evidence concerning the compliance status of Local 307
of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, with the filing re-
quirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act . In Case No 5-RC-2088, the
Respondent and the Intervenor had moved for dismissal of the petition , alleging that
Local 307 was not in compliance . The Board denied the motion upon the ground that
the compliance issue is litigable in an independent proceeding and not in a representation
proceeding , citing Standard Cigar Co., 117 NLRB 852 . The Trial Examiner refused to
take the proffered testimony in the instant case, relying on the Board 's decisions in the
representation proceeding in Case No . 5-RC-2088 and in Standard Cigar Co , supra. We
agree with the Trial Examiner 's ruling, which is in accord with established Board prac-
tice, that factual issues pertaining to the compliance ' status of Local 307, such as the
Respondent sought to raise at the hearing herein and the Intervenor raised in its brief,
were matters for administrative determination and not litigable in Board representation
or complaint proceedings . Standard Cigar Co., supra, at pp. 854-855; Langlade Veneer
Products Corporation, 118 NLRB 985 , 986, footnote 2; Shoreline Enterprises of America,
121 NLRB No. 96.