Hunt Heater Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 167 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

HUNT HEATER CORPORATION 167
workers, the registered nurse and other professional employees,
buyers,15 salesmen,ls gate watchmen, the truck dispatcher, head of the
cafeteria or restaurant, foremen of the day shipping, night shipping,
killing, tankage and lard, sausage, bacon, meat curing, garage, me-
chanics, supplies, beef, and construction departments, sales managers,
the assistant sales manager, the general superintendent, the manager
and the assistant manager, sales supervisors, and all other supervisors
as defined in the Act.'7
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
15 Grader Almstead, market employee Singletary and Charlie Wright, buyer and super-
visor
1a The parties do not disagree regarding the exclusion of the salesmen . See Central
Cigar d Tobacco Co, 112 NLRB 1094
17 Including Luck or Luke, Mrs Hobley, and Herman White.
Hunt Heater Corporation and International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America , AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-
^?400. July 13,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John S. Patton, hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that the
following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Day-
ton, Tennessee, heater and stove manufacturing plant, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.'
1 Although the parties stipulated that office and clerical employees be excluded, the
record shows there are no plant clerical employees in the plant The unit description
accordingly excludes only office clellcal employees.
113 NLRB No. 21.
379288-56-vol. 113-12
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The parties are in dispute as to the voting eligibility of certain
individuals laid off by the Employer at various times between Decem-
ber 1953 and March 1955. The Petitioner contends they are eligible
to vote, and the Employer asserts that they have been permanently
discharged.
Some of these employees were laid off in December 1953 as a result
of a fire which destroyed the plant. Most employees laid off at that
time have been rehired ; those who have not been rehired are considered
by the Employer as not qualified for reemployment, and will not be
recalled.2 Those separated from employment since that time were
allegedly seasonal layoffs, and employees laid off in March 1955 as
part of the Employer's policy of reducing its force as an economy
measure resulting from a decline in business. The general manager
testified without contradiction that because of the Employer's man-
power curtailment program, neither the seasonal nor the reduction-in-
force layoffs will be rehired within the foreseeable future.
The Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges alleging that
some of these laid-off employees were discriminatorily discharged, but
in respect to the instant proceeding waived the allegations contained
in the charges.' In accordance with the Board's usual procedure,'
the Regional Director is hereby instructed to challenge and segregate
the ballots of the employees named in the foregoing unfair labor
practice charges. Their ballots will not be considered unless deter-
minative of the results of the election. If determinative, the final
disposition of this case will await the determination of the pending
unfair labor practice charges. By allowing these persons to vote,
subject to challenge, we are not to be taken as having passed in any
way on the issues involved in the charges.5
On the record in this case, we find that all other employees who
were laid off between December 1953 and March 1955, whose voting
eligibility is questioned, do not at this time have a reasonable ex-
pectancy of reemployment, and they are accordingly not eligible to
vote in the election.6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 There is no seniority system in effect at the plant . Employees are recalled on the
basis of individual capabilities
3 Case No 10-CA-2095 is pending on appeal to the General Counsel ; Case No. 10-CA-
2306 is being investigated by the Regional Director.
6 See Knox Corporation, 104 NLRB 789; The Nashville Corporation, 77 NLRB 145.
5 Any employees who have been ordered reinstated by the Board and the United States
Court of Appeals in Cases Nos 10-CA-1616 and 10-CA-1749 (108 NLRB 1353, enf. Jan-
uary 19, 1955 (C. A. 6), 35 LRRM 2557), and who have not as yet been reinstated shall
also be peumtted to cast challenged ballots . Determination of their eligibility to vote,
if their ballots are determinative of the results of the election , will similarly await deter-
mination of the Employer' s compliance with the foregoing order of reinstatement. H N.
Thayer Company, 112 NLRB 792
6 Manchester Modes, Inc, et at ,, 111 NLRB 755.