Farm Tools, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1295 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

FARM TOOLS, INC. 1295
In a similar case involving another district in the Employer's cen-
tral division, the Board found appropriate a metropolitan multistore
unit based upon geographical factors .3 Although certain of the fac-
tors noted above indicate the appropriateness of single store units,
they do not compel the conclusion that only such units are appropriate.
In view of the proximity to each other of the five stores in metropoli-
tan Detroit, and their geographical separation from the other stores
in the Detroit district, and in view of the Employer's policy to inte-
grate the operation of its stores with the economic life of the commu-
nity in which such stores are located, we find that a unit comprising
servicemen of the five stores in metropolitan Detroit is an appropriate
unit for collective bargaining.
We find the following units appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(1) In Case No. 7-RC-1176-All junior and senior servicemen in
the Employer's stores at Detroit and Dearborn, Michigan, excluding
salesmen, sales clerks, office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) In Case No. 7-RC-1177-All employees at the Employer's
Detroit, Michigan, warehouse, excluding office and clerical employees,
guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(3) In Case No. 7-RC-1178-All employees at the Employer's
Detroit, Michigan, recapping plant, excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 B. F. Goodrich Company, 87 NLRB 1355 , wherein the Board found appropriate a
servicemen 's unit restricted to the Employer ' s stores in metropolitan Cincinnati.
See also The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , 85 NLRB 680; American Stores
Company; 82 NLRB 882.
FARM TOOLS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION9 UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-602. April 9, 1951
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification
of Representatives
On November 17, 1950, pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order,
and Second Direction of Election issued by the Board,' an election by
secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, among the employees
1 91 NLRB No. 179.
93 NLRB No. 228.
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in-the Board's original
Decision and Direction of Election.2 Upon completion of the election,
a tally of ballots was furnished the parties.
The tally shows that the vote was distributed as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------- 135
Void ballots-------------------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of. America, CIO----------------- 72
Votes cast against participating labor organization-------------------- 59
Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------ 131
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------- 8
On November 21,1950, the Employer filed "Objections to Election."
On or about February 16, 1951, following an investigation, the Re-
gional Director issued a "Report on Objections," in which he recom-
mended that the objections of the Employer be overruled. On Feb-
ruary 26, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
report and a supporting brief.3
The Employer contends principally that Virgil Noble, who engaged
in activities on behalf of the Union, was a supervisor and that he thus
interfered with the employees' free choice of a bargaining representa-
tive. However, the material facts, set forth in the Regional Director's
Report and not excepted to by the Employer ,4 do not support this
contention. Noble is a maintenance man and works under the super-
vision of Foreman Hazen. Noble was admittedly not a supervisor at
the time of the first election on March 8,1950. Sometime in June 1950,
Superintendent Heston asked Noble to set up some machinery, a job
that he had done previously a year before. Noble, along with other
men, proceeded to do so under the supervision of Foreman Hazen,
although he also received orders directly from Superintendent Heston.
He continued to receive his old rate of pay. He did not perform the
customary foreman's duties of signing work reports, making out
accident reports, or passing out any pay checks to the other employees
working with him. Neither Noble nor the men working with him were
ever told that he was in charge of the work, nor did the men consider
him a foreman. Under these circumstances, the Board agrees with
the Regional Director's conclusion that Noble was a rank-and-file
employee and not a supervisor as defined in the Act. We find there-
fore that the Employer's objections, based on the alleged supervisory
status of Noble, are without merit and afford no basis for setting aside
the election. Accordingly, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the
Regional Director's alternative conclusion that the Employer, by
2 88 NLRB 1302.
3In view of our disposition herein, we deem it unnecessary to consider the Petitioner's
motion to strike the Employer's exceptions.
" One of the Employer's exceptions urge the conclusion that it followed its customary
procedure in making Virgil Noble a foreman " We do not consider this exception as
putting in issue any material fact reported by the Regional Director. -
FARM TOOLS, INC. 1297
failing until after the election to objection to Noble's activity on behalf
of the Union, had waived its right to assert this ground as an objection
to the election.
The Employer further contends that there were sufficient challenged
ballots to affect the result of the election, and that the Board agent's
action in destroying 9 of these ballots was improper and prejudiced
the employees voting against the Union. The Regional Director's
Report indicates that the Employer had challenged 17 ballots, which,
according to the initial tally of ballots, were sufficient to affect the
result of the election. Thereupon, the Union agreed with the Em-
ployer that 9 of the ballots were cast by individuals who were no
longer employees of the Employer, that such individuals were therefore
not eligible to vote, and that such ballots should not be counted. The
Board agent then destroyed these 9 ballots and corrected the tally of
ballots to reflect this change. Neither the Employer nor the Union
raised any objection to this procedure at the time. Under these circum-
stances we agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that no one
was prejudiced thereby. Accordingly, we find the Employer's conten-
tion without merit.5
As no other exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's Report,
the Board hereby adopts the Regional Director's recommendation
dismissing all the Employer's objections.
As the Union has secured a majority of the valid votes cast,6 we shall
certify it as the collective bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO,
has been designated and selected by a majority of all the production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Mansfield, Ohio, plant,
including timekeepers, draftsmen, and machine operators in the
engineering department, but excluding office and clerical employees,
engineers in the engineering department, watchmen, guards, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant
to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive
representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and STYLES took no part in the consideration of
the above Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.
6 See Seneca Falls Machine Company, 72 NLRB 904 at 905, 906.
6 The remaining 8 challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election.
943732-51-83