Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 429 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

KERMAC NUCLEAR FUELS CORP. 429
of the five officers of Malco are also officers of the Employer. In addi-
tion, the two corporations have common stockholders. However,
Malco itself owns no stock in the Employer's corporation, and the
record shows, Malco had no connection with the organization of the
Employer nor has it ever contributed financial or other support to it.
The only connection between the two corporations, beyond the fact
of common officers and stockholders, is that Malco performs account-
ing service for the Employer for which it is paid a fee, deriving a
reasonable profit therefrom. There is no interchange of employees,
no common labor policies or benefits, nor does Malco exercise any
authority or control over the manager of the Employer who actively
operates the establishment and who hires and fires employees, inde-
pendently of Malco. We conclude from the foregoing that the Em-
ployer herein operates independently and not as part of an integrated
enterprise, which has centralized management and control over its
labor relations policies. Accordingly, we find that the Employer and
Malco Theatres, Inc., do not constitute a single employer within the
meaning of the Act.3
We shall therefore dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
s Electronncs Circuits, Inc., 11-5 NLRB 940; American Furniture Company, Inc, 116
NLRB 1496; Clark Concrete Construction Corporation, 116 NLRB 321; Central Dairy
Products Co., 114 NLRB 1189.
Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp. and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-708. August 11, 1959
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Amended Deci-
sion and Direction of Election' issued by the Board on March 30,
1959, in the above-entitled proceeding, a runoff election was con-
,ducted on May 21, 1959, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Thirty-third Region among the employees
in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon conclusion of the
runoff election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which
showed that, of approximately 359 eligible voters, 307 ballots were
cast, of which 149 were for Intervenor United Mine Workers of
America, District 50, herein called UMW, 152 were for Intervenor
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
,herein called OCAW, 1 was void, and 5 were challenged. The chal-
lenges were sufficient in number to affect the election results. No
;timely objections were made to the conduct of the election.
1123 NLRB 462.
124 NLRB No. 58.
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 7, 1959, the Regional Director issued his report on chal-
lenged ballots, in which he recommended that the challenge to the
ballot of Elmer Miller be sustained; that the challenges to the ballots
of Arnold Peterson, Waldo Quarles, and Lyle Allison be withdrawn
and their ballots opened and counted; and, as he was unable to resolve
the issue raised by the parties as to whether or not the remaining
challengee, John Connachan, was a supervisor, that a hearing be held
on such issue if it will affect the election results. The Employer,.
OCAW, and UMW filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report.
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report on chal-
lenged ballots, the exceptions thereto, and the entire record in the
case, and finds as follows : 2
The ballots of Peterson and Quarles were challenged by the Board
agent conducting the election on the ground that their names did not
appear on the eligibility list. The Regional Director found that their
names were in fact included in the eligibility list and that the parties
agreed they were eligible and that the challenges may be withdrawn.
The Employer and UMW, in their exceptions, for the first time seek
to raise certain issues with respect to the eligibility of these employees.
We find that these contentions, as they were not made in the course of
the Regional Director's investigation of the challenges of these two
employees, are untimely and in the nature of postelection challenges.'
Accordingly, the challenges to the ballots of Peterson and Quarles are
overruled.
Allison's ballot was challenged by the Board agent because his
name did not appear on the eligibility list. The Regional Director
recommended that the challenge be overruled as he was in fact em-
ployed on the eligibility date and, although terminated on April 11,
was rehired and on the payroll on the election date. The Employer
2 In their exceptions, the Employer and UMW contend that the Regional Director im-
properly counted an alleged void ballot. However, we agree with the ruling of the officer-
in-charge of the Thirty-third Subregion of the Board, that UMW's request concerning
this ballot was in the nature of an objection and that it was untimely filed. See George
K. Garrett Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 484, 486, footnote 4. The above contention is
therefore rejected.
The Employer also urged that the election be set aside on the ground that, despite
its position taken at the hearing that laboratory technicians be excluded from the unit,
no specific reference was made to them in the Board's unit description and they may
have voted in the election. We find no merit in the contention. The Employer did not
request reconsideration of the Board's Decision on this basis prior to the holding of'the
initial election herein. Its present attack upon the election results on such ground is
therefore in the nature of a post-election challenge, which the. Board will not consider.
However, upon resolution of the post-election issues involved in this proceeding,' we
shall entertain a motion for clarification as to the appropriate unit placement of tech-
nical employees.
3 See Flight Enterprises, Inc., 119 NLRB 1442.
LEISURE LADS , INC. 431
contends that Allison was permanently terminated on April 11, and
UDWW asserts that he was not an employee on the election date. UMW
offered no evidence to support its contention . In view of the Regional
Director's finding that Allison was an employee within the unit on
the eligibility date and on the election date, we find , in accord with our
established eligibility rules, that he was an eligible voter 4 The
challenge to his ballot is therefore overruled.
As no exceptions were made to the Regional Director 's recommenda -
tions as to the challenges to the ballots of Miller and Connachan, the
recommendations are hereby adopted.
Accordingly , we shall direct that the ballots of Peterson , Quarles,
and Allison be opened and counted . In the event that all three have
voted for UMW and the challenged ballot of Connachan becomes
determinative of the election results , the Regional Director is au-
thorized to order a hearing for the purpose of resolving the issue
raised with respect to Connachan 's eligibility.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Thirty -
third Region shall, within 10 days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Arnold Peterson , Waldo Quarles, and
Lyle Allison and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of
ballots, including therein the count of the aforementioned challenged
ballots. If the Intervenor , OCAAV, receives a majority of the valid
votes cast and the unresolved challenge is unsufficient to affect the
results, the Regional Director will issue a certification of representa-
tives to such labor organization.]
[The Board further directed that, in the event a hearing as to the
eligibility of John Connachan is held, the hearing officer serve upon
the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of wit-
nesses, finding of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the
eligibility of John Connachan . Within 10 days from the date of is-
suance of the report , any party may file with the Board in Washing-
ton, D .C., an original and six copies of exceptions thereto. Immedi-
ately upon the filing of such exceptions , the party filing shall serve a
copy upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy with the,
Regional Director . If no exceptions are filed thereto , the Board will
adopt the recommendations of the hearing officer.]
* See Reade Manufacturing Company, Inc., 100 NLRB 87, 89.
Leisure Lads, Inc. and United Textile Workers of America..
Case No. 11-CA-1333. August 10, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 27, 1959, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
124 NLRB No. 62.