Leach Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 4, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 772 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, as the senior load dispatchers, load dispatchers, and load
forecasters are presently excluded from the bargaining unit, we be-
lieve that they should not now be included without being given an
opportunity, by a self-determination election, to express their desire
to be included in the existing unit or to remain unrepresented 6
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting
group .
All senior load dispatchers, load dispatchers, and load forecasters
at the Employer's operations in Berlin, Connecticut, excluding all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act'
If a majority of the employees in the above voting group cast their
ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a part of the existing production and maintenance
unit currently represented by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner may
bargain for such employees as part of that unit If a majority of
them vote against the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain outside the existing unit, and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134, as amended 109 NLRB 312 and 862
Leach Corporation , Inet Division and Local Union 1710, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Pet!-,
tioner. Case No 21 RC-5092 September 4, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on April 29,
1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 20,1958, under
the direction and supervision of the acting Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region, among the production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Compton, California, plant Following the
election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which showed
that of 155 ballots cast, 47 were for the Petitioner, 46 were for the
Intervenor,' 56 were against the participating labor organizations,
and 6 were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion of the challenges and thereafter, on July 2, 1958, issued and duly
served on the parties a report on challenges In his report, the Re-
Not published
$ International Assoeiaton of Machinists, District Lodge No 94, Local Lodge No 311.
AFL-CIO
121 NLRB No 99.
LEACH CORPORATION 773
gional Director recommended that the challenges to five of the ballots
in question should be sustained and that the remaining challenge
should be overruled. The Intervenor filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins].,
1. The investigation disclosed that Mary L. Morie, Ruth M. Piper,
William J. Rival, Clarence W. Taylor, and Chester Pipkin were laid
off on April 30, 1958, together with 45 other employees, in a general
reduction of force caused by lack of work. The Regional Director
found that these 'employees had no reasonable expectancy of em-
ployment by the Employer in the near future, and recommended that
the challenges to their ballots be sustained.
With respect to Piper, Rival, and Taylor, the Intervenor contends
that the challenges to their ballots should be overruled on the ground
thatAey were only temporarily laid off and that, under its bargaining
agreement with the Employer, these employees had recall rights for
1 year. However, any contractual recall rights that these employees
.may have are not dispositive of their right to vote. Rather the test
is whether they had a reasonable expectancy of recall in the near
future as of the date'of the election.' The investigation reveals that
they were laid off for lack of work prior to the election and that,
subsequent to the election, the Employer anticipated a still further
reduction in force. Under all the circumstances, it appears that, as
of the critical date herein, these employees had no reasonable ex-
pectancy of returning to work in the near future. We shall, there-
fore, sustain the challenges to their ballots.'
In Morie's case, the Intervenor contends that the challenge should
be overruled because Morie has an appeal pending before the General
Counsel from -the Regional Director's dismissal of an unfair labor
practice charge alleging her discriminatory discharge. This conten-
tion is without merit. As the Regional Director has dismissed the
unfair labor practice charge in question,' and as it appears that Morie
had no more expectation of reemployment as of the date of the election
than the above-named employees, we sustain the challenge to Morie's
ballot.
As for Pipkin, the Intervenor excepts to the Regional Director's
recommendation on the ground that Pipkin was injured at work on
April 4, and that he is entitled to reemployment, under its contract
s Shaw-Randall Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 444, 445.
* Ibid.
Cf. Sylvania Electric Products , Inc., 119 NLRB 824; CaUfornia Footwear Company,
114-NLRB'-765.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Employer, when physically able to return. However, what-
ever Pipkin's status under the contract before April 30, he was in-
cluded in the general layoff of April 30 and, as found by the Regional
Director, "is in the same category as the other employees laid off on
April 30." In these circumstances, it appears that Pipkin had no
reasonable expectancy of recall in the near future as of the time of the
election, and we shall therefore sustain the challenge to his ballot 6
2. The ballot of Michael A. Gallegos was challenged by the Peti-
tioner on the ground that Gallegos was a clerical employee. The
investigation disclosed that he is a truckdriver,, and the Regional
Director therefore recommended that the challenge to his ballot be
overruled.' No exception was taken to this recommendation. Ac-
cordingly, we shall overrule the challenge to this ballot and direct that
it be opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, and within ten (10) days from the date of this
Direction, open and count the ballot of Michael A. Gallegos and serve
upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the
count of the challenged ballot.]
6 A motion for consideration of current supporting evidence to exceptions to report on
challenged ballots filed by- the Intervenor on July 28, 1958, concerns alleged recent
occurrences which, even if assumed to be true , do not warrant a different finding herein
in the cases of the five employees in question . See Personal Products corporation, 116
NLRB 393, footnote 11.
4 Truckdrivers are included in the appropriate unit in this case.
Advertisers Associates, Inc. and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local 24, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 6-RC-203fJ.
September 4, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board herein on April 2, 1958,1 the Regional Director for the Sixth
Region conducted an election by secret ballot on April 22, 1958, among
the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. Upon the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with-a tally of
ballots. The tally shows that of approximately 15 eligible voters, 15
cast ballots, of which 5 were for the Petitioner, 3 were against the
Petitioner, and 7 were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director investigated them and
i Not published.
121 NLRB No. 97.