National Truck Rental Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1349 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

NATIONAL TRUCK RENTAL COMPANY, INC 1349
I shall also recommend that the Respondents, jointly and severally, make whole James G.
Hebshie and Fred Hebshie for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them, by the payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned from June 19, 1953, until the date he would have been laid off in the absence
of unfair practices, less his net earnings during such period. Back pay shall.be computed in
accordance with the formula estabhshed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Conclusions of Law
1. C. A. Batson Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 721, International Hod Carriers, Building & Common Laborers Union of America,
A.F.L., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Recommendations omitted from publication.]
NATIONAL TRUCK RENTAL COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL
639, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, AND DISTRICT LODGE NO. 67, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL (LOCAL
1486 ), Petitioner . Case No. 5-RC-1397. June 15, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND SECOND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On February 19, 1954, pursuant to the Decision and Direction
of Election issued by the Board in the above-entitled case,' an
election was conducted, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director, in the unit therein found appropriate.
Following the election, the Regional Director issued and served
on the parties a tally of ballots, which shows that of the 31
ballots cast in the election, 13 were cast for the Petitioner,
15 were cast against the Petitioner, and 3 ballots were
challenged. The challenged ballots are sufficient to affect the
outcome of the election.
On February 25, and 26, 1954, respectively, the Employer
and the Petitioner filed timely objections to the conduct of the
election. On April 2, 1954, after investigation, the Regional
Director issued and served on the parties his report on
objections and challenges. On April 9, 1954, the Employer
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has reviewed the objections to the election, the
Regional Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions
thereto. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
as follows:
With respect to the challenged ballots, the Employer con-
tends that Silas Allen and Elmer Walton, two of the challenged
'Not reported in the printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders
108 NLRB No. 191.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
voters, are supervisors as defined in the Act, and that the
challenges to their ballots should be sustained; the Petitioner
makes the same contention with respect to Charles McKeown,
the third challenged voter. The Regional Director, finding
that the Employer designates these voters as working foremen,
a classification expressly included in the appropriate unit in
the Board's decision, concluded that they were thus eligible
to vote and recommended that their ballots be opened and
counted. Thurston Morris, the fourth and only other working
foreman, cast a vote without challenge.
The Board has reviewed the evidence adduced at the hearing
and finds that the inclusion of working foremen in the appro-
priate unit was inadvertent. The working foremen are clearly
supervisors as defined in the Act.2 Under these circumstances,
the Board rejects the Regional Director's recommendation
respecting the challenged ballots, and amends the earlier
unit finding to exclude working foremen. In view of the
possible confusion that may have resulted from the Board's
inadvertence in including working foremen within the unit, the
Board is of the opinion that the purposes of the Act will be
best served if the election here is set aside and another
election is held among the employees in the amended unit.'
Accordingly, we find that all employees engaged in main-
taining, repairing, and servicing motor vehicle equipment at
the Employer's automobile and truck rental establishments
at 2316 Georgia Avenue, N. W., 125 Q Street, N. E., and 1709
L Street, N. W., in the District of Columbia, and at the
Washington National Airport, including auto and truck me-
chanics, body and fender men, tiremen, washers, porters,
service men, and helpers, but excluding office employees,
guards, watchmen, and working foremen and other supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[The Board set aside the election held on February 19, 1954.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
2 Uncontroverted evidence shows that working foremen may effectively recommend promo-
tion, discipline, and discharge.
3 Because we direct a new election for the reason stated, we find it unnecessary to make
any findings with respect to the other issues raised on the conduct of the first election.