Le Roi Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

LE ROI COMPANY 309
Having duly considered the matter , the Board2 makes the
following disposition of the challenged ballots , the void ballot,
and the objections to the election:
(1) As no exceptions were filed to the hearing officer's
report , we adopt his recommendation for overruling the
challenges to all seven challenged ballots.
(2) During the counting of the ballots , the Board agent in
charge of the election ruled as void a ballot with an "X" and
the letters "NO" in the "neither " box. The Board agent
believed that the markings constituted an identifying mark.
The Regional Director recommended upholding the Board
agent's action . The Employer excepted to the Regional Direc-
tor's recommendation . In previous cases, the Board has ruled
valid ballots marked like that of the voided ballot in this
case.3 Accordingly , we overrule the Regional Director and
shall direct that the voided ballot be counted as a "neither"
vote.
(3) No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's
recommendation for overruling the Intervenor ' s objections
to the election . In accordance with his recommendation, they
are hereby overruled.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the
Seventeenth Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date
of this Direction, open and count these ballots and serve
upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots, including
therein the count of these ballots, and the void ballot counted
as a "neither " vote.]
2 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 Houston, Murdock, and Peter -
son]
3Marshall, Meadows & Stewart, Inc., 59 NLRB 1286; Van Raalte Company, Inc., 49 NLRB
985
LE ROI COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
13-RC-2211. June 2, 1953
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On January 14, 1953, pursuant to the Board's Supplemental
Decision and Orders and a Direction of Second Elections dated
December 15, 1952, elections were conducted, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director, by secret
ballot, among the employees of the Employer in the voting
groups found appropriate in the Board's Decision and Direc-
tion of Elections of February 18, 1952,2 to determine whether
1 101 NLRB 55.
2 98 NLRB No 24
105 NLRB No. 41.
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or not the said employees desired the Petitioner to represent
them in a single unit or in separate units.
Upon the conclusion of the elections, tallies of ballots
were issued and served upon the parties hereto in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tallies show
that of approximately 154 eligible voters in voting group
(a),3 63 voted for the Petitioner, 90 voted against it, and 1
ballot was challenged; that of the 5 eligible voters in voting
group (b),4 no ballots were cast in favor of proposition 11 or
proposition 2,6 whereas 2 ballots were cast against both
propositions. On January 16, 1953, the Petitioner filed objections
to the elections.
On April 8, 1953, after investigating the objections, the
Regional Director issued his report on objections, in which he
recommended that Objection No. 2 be sustained, that the
elections be set aside and new elections be directed, and that
the remaining objections be overruled. Because the challenges
were not sufficient in number to affect the elections, the
Regional Director made no report concerning the challenges.
The Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
report.
The Board' has considered the Regional Director's report
on objections and the exceptions filed by the Employer and,
like the Regional Director, finds merit in the Petitioner's
Objection No. 2, which alleged that the Employer interfered
with the free choice of the employees voting in the elections
by granting wage increases immediately prior to the date
of the elections. The Regional Director's findings, insofar
as here pertinent , are as follows:
On May 16, 1952, a petition for an increase in wages for the
production employees was filed with the Wage Stabilization
Board. On June 3, 1952, the Employer filed a petition with
the Wage Stabilization Board for an increase in wages for its
office employees. In a letter dated December 22, 1953, the
Wage Stabilization Board approved both of these petitions,
effective December 19, 1952. The increases to both the office
and the production employees amounted to approximately 4
cents per hour and both increases were retroactive to October
19, 1952. The increase for the office employees was announced
by the Employer on January 9, 1953, and was reflected in the
3 This voting group was composed of all office clerical employees at the Employer's Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, plant, excluding all employees listed in Schedule A attached to the Decision
and Direction of Elections, nurses, production and maintenance employees, methods engineers,
executives, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4This group was composed of all nurses in the medical department at the Employer's Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, plant, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act.
SThis proposition was to determine whether the employees in voting group (b) desired to be
included in a unit with the employees of voting group (a) for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing
6 This proposition was to determine whether the employees in voting group (b) desired to
be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the Petitioner.
7 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 Murdock, Styles, and Peter-
son].
CHARLES E. DABOLL, JR. 311
paycheck to the office employees of the same date. The
Regional Director concluded that the timing of the increase
was designed by the Employer to influence the outcome of the
elections. The Regional Director therefore recommended that
the elections be set aside.
The Employer contends that the increase was granted on
January 9 because it was the first regular payday after it
received notice of approval of the increase by the Wage
Stabilization Board. However, nothing in the Wage Stabilization
Board ruling required that the Employer give the increase
on that date, or precluded the Employer from waiting a few
more days until after the election before granting the in-
crease. In granting the increase despite the imminence of the
elections, the Employer repeated essentially the same conduct
which impelled the Board to set aside the prior elections of
March 13, 1952. Those elections were set aside because the
Employer only 10 days before the elections granted an
increase to about one-third of the eligible voters. The Board
said: "No reason appears why the Employer could not have
postponed this March 3, 1952, increase until after the election.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the purpose of the grant-
ing of this increase in wages, particularly in view of its
timing, was to influence the results of the elections; and that
the granting of such increase interfered with the elections." "
For similar reasons, we find that the January 9, 1953,
increase interfered with the elections of January 14.
We, accordingly, sustain Objection No. 2 filed by the
Petitioner to the conduct of the elections. We shall, therefore,
set aside the elections of January 14, 1953, and direct new
elections at such time as the Regional Director advises the
Board that the circumstances permit a free choice among
the employees herein concerned.
[The Board set aside the elections.]
e 101 NLRB 55.
CHARLES E. DABOLL, JR. and CLARENCE B. SELLS
OPERATIVE PLASTERERS ' AND CEMENT MASONS' INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , AFL, LOCAL UNION 797 and
CLARENCE B. SELLS. Cases Nos. 20 - CA-707 and
20-CB - 244. June 3, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 31, 1953, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued
his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging
in certain unfair labor practices , and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
105 NLRB No. 44.
291555 0 - 54 - 21