77 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

Kol-Master Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 4, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of KOL- MASTER CORPORATION , E:IIPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT 101, PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-4326 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES May 4, 19/8 On February 27, 1948, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board in the above -entitled proceeding 1 on February 4, 1948, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region. At the close of the election , a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties by the Regional Director . The Tally shows that there were approximately 26 eligible voters and that 24 cast ballots, of which 12 were for the Petitioner , 9 against the Petitioner , and 3 were chal- lenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed by either of the parties. Inasmuch as the number of challenged ballots could affect the out- come of the election , the Regional Director , in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations , conducted an investigation and, there- after, on March 15, 1948, issued and served upon the parties a Report on Challenges. On March 17 , 1948, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's Report. In his report on challenges , the Regional Director found that Frank E. Laskos , challenged as a professional employee by the Petitioner, was an hourly rated employee, who spent the greater portion of his time as a pattern maker and that Laskos was not a professional em- ployee within the meaning of the Act, and recommended that the challenge to the ballot of Laskos be overruled . Neither of the parties filed exceptions to the Regional Director 's recommendation regarding ' 75N L. R B 1229. 77 N. L. R B, No. 79. 466 KOL-MASTER CORPORATION 467 Laskos. We, therefore, adopt the Regional Director's findings and recommendation respecting Laskos and hereby overrule the challenge to the ballot of Laskos. The Petitioner also challenged the ballots of Raymond J. Bressler and Robert M. Stevens on the ground that Bressler and Stevens are both close relatives of the Employer's president. The Regional Direc- tor found that Bressler is the son, and Stevens is the stepson, of the Employer's president, and recommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained. The Employer excepts, urging that a corpora- tion, as such, cannot be viewed as having "relatives," and that, there- fore, any family relationship to a corporation officer has no effect upon the status of an employee of the corporation. It is true that neither Bressler nor Stevens is an individual "employed by his parent or spouse" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act; nor did the Regional Director so find. In view, however, of their close relation- ship to management, we are persuaded that the interests of Bressler and Stevens are substantially different from those of the other em- ployees involved, and the unit found appropriate in this proceeding should be, and hereby is, amended to exclude Bressler and Stevens therefrom.- Accordingly, we find that Bressler and Stevens are in- eligible to vote in the election, and we sustain the challenges to their ballots. Because it appears that the counting of the valid ballot cast by Laskos will not affect the results of the election, we will not direct that it be opened and counted. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the amended appropriate Unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERr1FIEn that International Association of Machinists, District 101, ha- been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of the afore-mentioned Employer in the unit heretofore found by the Brird to be appropriate and herein amended, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 2 See Matter of J F Johnson Lumbei Company, 73 N L R. B. 320, and cases cited therein.