86 N.L.R.B. 1238 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

Dallas-Fort Worth Brewing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 3, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 1238 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of DALLAS-FORT WORTH BREWING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and STATIONARY ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 707, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 16-RC'-370 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION November 3,1949 Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 15, 1949, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas). At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that there were approximately five eligible voters, that four votes were cast, of which two were for the Petitioner and two for the Intervenor, and that one vote, cast by Edwin S. Hooten, was challenged by the Intervenor. As the challenged ballot was sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on July 29, 1949, issued and served upon the parties his Report on Chal- lenged Ballot, in which he recommended that the challenge be sus- tained on the ground that Hooten is a supervisor. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's recom- Inendation. On August 17, 1949, the Board directed that a hearing be held for the purpose of taking evidence on the issue raised by the challenged ballot. Pursuant to such order, a hearing was held on August 31, 1949, before Elmer Davis, a hearing officer of the National Labor Re- lations Board, at which representatives of all parties appeared and participated. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: 1 84 N. L. R. B. 681. 86 N. L. R. B., No. 131. 1238 DALLAS-FORT WORTH BREWING COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT 1239 The unit found appropriate in the Board's Direction of Election is the Employer's engineering department, consisting of five engineers, classified as maintenance operators, including Edwin S. Hooten, also called chief engineer. The department is under the direct supervi- sion and responsibility of the Assistant Brew Master (Plant Superin- tendent). Hooten has the same duties, receives the same rate of pay, and works the same hours as the other engineers in the department. Admittedly, he has no authority to hire, discharge, or in any way discipline other employees. Because he works the day shift, he re- ceives the days' orders from the Assistant Brew Master and posts them for use by the night shift men. In this respect, he merely acts as a conduit for the transmission of orders. He also questions appli- cants for employment, but only for the purpose of determining their technical qualifications and experience, and reports his findings to the Assistant Brew Master. The latter then interviews the applicants and makes the determination as to their employment. Upon the basis of the aforesaid facts, and upon the entire record, we believe and find that Edwin S. Hooten is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.' He was therefore eligible to vote in the election. Accordingly, we do not adopt the Regional Director's recommenda- tion, but instead hereby overrule the.challenge to Edwin S. Hooten's ballot. As the results of the election may be affected by the counting of this ballot, we shall direct that it be opened and counted. DIRECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Dallas-Fort Worth Brewing Company, Dallas, Texas , the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region shall , pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballot of Edwin S. Hooten and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots setting forth the results of the election including therein the count of said challenged ballot. MEMBERS HOUSTON and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction. 2 Matter of Gold Medal Dairies, Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 426; Matter of Pevely Dairy Com- pany, 80 N. L. It. B. 1683; Matter of The Austin Company, 77 N. L. It. B. 938.