Layne & Bowler, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1446 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit, therefore, would be inappropriate in any event for the reason
that the evidence shows the employees sought constitute only a seg-
ment of a group exercising similar skills. We therefore find that the
proposed unit of pipefitters, welders, and their helpers is not appro-
priate and we shall therefore dismiss the Pipefitters' petition.'i
As their alternative position, the Pipefitters would represent a unit
of heating and ventilating men, pipefitters, and welders. As we find
that these classifications are not craftsmen, we, likewise find that the
Pipefitters alternative unit is not appropriate.12
In view of the foregoing, we shall direct elections by secret ballots
among the following groups of employees at the Employer's Coving-
ton, Indiana, plant, excluding from each voting group the employees
in the other voting group office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act : 13
(a) All powerhouse employees, boilerroom employees, and the
maintenance mechanics permanently assigned to work in the power-
house.
(b) All maintenance department employees, including mechanics,
machinists, electricians, carpenters, painters, pipefitters, welders, lead
burners, toolroom keeper, lamp man and maintenance helpers, but
excluding the mechanics permanently assigned to work in the power-
house.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 35-RC-1411.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
11E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (Dana Plant), 116 NLRB 286.
12 As we are dismissing the petition of the Pipefitters, we do not consider one of the
alternative units of the Operating Engineers, namely, a unit of maintenance employees
excluding the classifications sought by the Pipefitters.
U Although the Textile Workers and the Paperworkers urge that the only appropriate
unit is an overall production and maintenance unit, neither union has made the necessary
showing of interest in such unit ; accordingly , no election is directed among the produc-
tion employees.
Layne & Bowler, Incorporated and United Plant Guard Workers
of America, International Union , Local No. 108, Ind., Petitioner.
Case No. 32-RC-960. May 1,1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on December 13, 1956,1 an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on January 11, 1957, under the direction and supervision of
I Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
117 N LRB No. 179.
LAYNE & BOWLER, INCORPORATED 1447
the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, among certain em-
ployees of the Employer in a unit found appropriate by the Board.
At the close of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of bal-
lots, which shows that of approximately 4 eligible voters, 4 cast bal-
lots for the Petitioner, and none were cast against the Petitioner.
On January 17, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to the
election. After an investigation, the Regional Director on February
7, 1957, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objec-
tions, a copy of which is attached hereto.2 The Regional Director
found that the Employer's objections lacked merit and recommended
that they be overruled. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's report on objections.
The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the Regional
Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and hereby
adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director
as supplemented below.' Accordingly, as it appears that the Peti-
tioner has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify
the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer's plant guards.
[The Board certified United Plant Guard Workers of America,
International Union, Local No. 108, Ind., as the designated collective-
bargaining representative of the plant guards at the Employer's
Memphis, Tennessee, plant.]
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting in part :
I am in full agreement with the certification. I am in disagreement
with attaching to it footnote 3 which undertakes to explain or advise
what the Employer may do with respect to abolishing the unit certi-
fied despite the issuance of the certification. This is an unnecessary
and unwarranted departure from the Board's usual practice in issuing
certifications. Beyond this basic objection, its text is ambiguous and
misleading as it might be interpreted to mean that the Employer may
abolish the unit without bargaining with the union.
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
2 The report on objections sets forth the alleged objections. The report contains an
"Exhibit 1" which is not reproduced herein.
8 One of the objections urged by the Employer is that the Board took administrative
notice of the fact that the guards were reinstated without considering the terms of an
alleged agreement under which they were recalled . Notwithstanding the terms of such
alleged agreement , we do not perceive that the Employer will in any way be prejudiced by
our certification that on the day of the election , a majority of guards then on the Em-
ployer's payroll had designated the Petitioner as their bargaining representative. Such
certiflcatih n does not preclude the Employer from subsequently expanding , com,racting, or
abolishing its guard force for nondiscriminatory reasons.
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued December 13, 1956, by
the National Labor Relations Board, an election was held on January 11, 1957, in
a unit of plant guards. The results of the election embodied in the tally of ballots
issued on January 11, 1957, were as follows:
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------- 4
Void ballots ------------------------------------------------ 0
Votes cast for Petitioner-------------------------------------- 4
Votes cast against participating labor organization---------------- 0
Valid votes counted------------------------ ------------------ 4
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------- 0
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots----------------------- 4
A majority of the valid votes counted plus challenged ballots has been
cast for Petitioner.
On January 17, 1957, the Employer timely filed objections to the election, a copy
of which was duly served upon the Petitioner. The objections were as follows:
(1) The decision of the Board and its direction of election was arbitrary
and erroneous in that it was not based upon substantial evidence or inference
therefrom, but to the contrary was based upon routine administrative reports of
an undisclosed hearsay nature and a direct inference therefrom. The petition
for election should have been denied because the uncontroverted evidence on
the official record discloses that the employer had adopted a plan to abolish the
guard unit and had entered into a contract to have its guard service performed
by an independent contractor. (See Motion for Reconsideration filed De-
cember 26, 1956.) Where there were no eligible employees no election should
have been conducted.
(a) Aluminum Line, (1938) 9 NLRB 72.
(b) Mobile S. S. Ass'n., (1938) 9 NLRB 60.
(2) The Board's agents conducting the election had knowledge that all of the
voters were ineligible temporary employees and failed to challenge their ballots,
and the votes cast by such persons affected the results of the election.
(a) Beggs & Cobb, Inc., (1945) 62 NLRB 193.
(b) Wayne Hale,. (1945) 62 NLRB 1393.
Pursuant to Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as
amended, an investigation of said objections was conducted under the supervision
and direction of the Regional Director, who reports thereon as follows:
By letter of January 29, 1957, copy of which is attached hereto as exhibit 1, the
Employer submitted an additional statement in clarification of its objections.
With respect to objection (1), the investigation disclosed that a hearing on the
petition was held on September 14, 1956, at which all parties were represented, and
the Decision and Direction of Election issued on December 13, 1956. In footnote 1
of its Decision and Direction of Election, the Board made the following observa-
tion ". . . Thereafter, the Board was administratively advised that the Employer, for
the time being, has abandoned its plan to abolish its present plant protection opera-
tions. . . . By a motion for reconsideration dated December 21, 1956, the Em-
ployer took exception to the aforementioned Decision and Direction of Election
and, in particular, excepted to that part of footnote 1 cited above. In substance, the
Employer in its motion contended that the Board erred in acting upon the administra-
tive advice instead of remanding the case for further hearing (paragraph 2, page 3,
motion for reconsideration). Thereafter, the Board in its order denying motion
dated January 7, 1957, denied the motion for reconsideration as lacking in merit. -
On page 1 of its letter of January 29, 1957 (exhibit 1), the Employer relates the
,circumstances of a strike involving all 4 employees in the voting unit in question
and 3 conditions of agreement reached between the parties to effect the settlement
of the strike.
The last sentence in the first paragraph on page 2 of the Employer's letter of
January 29, 1956, reads as follows: "The sole issue is therefore, on the question
of the subsequent administrative advice or interpretation of the events as they
occurred, taken without regard to the agreement between the parties, under which
the events occurred, which agreement was related to the facts developed at the
formal hearing before the Board on September 14, 1956."
It therefore appears that the Employer is merely restating in objection (1) the
position it had previously asserted in its motion for reconsideration . Inasmuch as
FAIRBANKS, MORSE & COMPANY 1449
the Board had duly considered the matter and found it lacking in merit , objection'
(1) is found to be without merit and it is recommended that the Board overrule this
objection.
With respect to objection ( 2), it appears from the Employer 's letter of January 29,
1957 ( exhibit 1) that objection (2) results from Employer 's objection (1) and
the Employer's belief that "it was incumbent upon the Board's agent conducting
the election to challenge all the Ballots on the ground that the employees were
ineligible , temporary employees ." The investigation reveals that the Board agent
who conducted the election was not requested by the Employer to challenge the ballots
of the voters nor was there any discussion of the desirability of challenging the voters.
In addition , it is found that the Employer was represented during the conduct of
the election by an observer of its own choosing and that this observer made no attempt
to challenge the ballots of the voters on behalf of the Company . Without making a
finding in regard to the Employer 's contention that objection ( 2) naturally follows
from objection ( 1), it is found that objection ( 2) is of the nature of a postelection
challenge and no merit is found to this objection . It is therefore recommended that
Employer's objection ( 2) be overruled.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Regional Director concludes and finds that the objections filed by the Em-
ployer do not raise substantial and material issues affecting the results of the election.
It is therefore recommended that the objections be overruled in their entirety and a
certification of representatives be issued.
Fairbanks , Morse & Company and Local 234, United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, AFL-CIO , Petitioner.
Case No. 1-RC-47,38. May 1,1957
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 George A. Sweeney, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Jenkins].
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
employees 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. The appropriate unit :
The Employer, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the manufac-
ture of scales at its plant in St. Johnsbury, Vermont. Only this plant
is involved in this proceeding. The Petitioner currently represents
the production and maintenance employees at this plant, and now
117 NLRB No. 188.