Norris-Thermador Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1341 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

NORRIS-THERMADOR CORPORATION. 1341
status of employees, and any direction that. he would give would be
routine. We find that Graham is not a supervisor and include him
in the unit.
We find the following unit to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's In-
dianapolis, Indiana, plant including the production clerk, the janitor,
the clerical employee in the receiving department, and the setup men,,
but excluding the leadmen, office clerical employees, time-study em-
ployees, production control employees, tool designer, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 In accordance with our decision above , we direct that the setup men on the night
shift be permitted to vote subject to challenge in the election directed herein.
Norris-Thermador Corporation and International Union , United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-4497.
September 11, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election 1
issued by the Board on April 24, 1957, an election by secret ballot
was conducted on May 9, 1957, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, among em-
ployees in the unit heretofore found appropriate by the Board. Upon
the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which shows that there were approximately 859 eligible voters,
that 418 ballots were cast for Petitioner, that 415 ballots were cast
against Petitioner, that 4 ballots were challenged, and that 3 void
ballots were cast.
Thereafter the Employer filed timely objections to the election.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re-
sults of the election, the Regional Director caused an investigation
of both the objections and the challenges to be conducted and on
July 5, 1957, issued a report on challenged ballots and objections
in which he found that the objections are without merit and recom=
mended that they be overruled. The Regional Director also found
that all of the challenges are without merit and recommended that
they also be overruled and the ballots be opened and counted. There-
after, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's find-
1117 NLRB 1340.
118 NLRB No. 177.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings and recommendations concerning 3 of the 4 challenged ballots,
and the Employer filed exceptions to his findings and recommenda-
tions concerning the Employer 's first and second objections to
the election.
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 [ Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Bean].
The Challenged Ballots
The Regional Director's investigation revealed that on the day
before the election representatives of the Employer and Petitioner
met for the purpose of checking the eligibility list to be used in the
election . At that meeting, the Employer's director of industrial
relations gave Petitioner 's representatives a list of employees' names
which he referred to as the eligibility list. He also presented on blue
paper a list which contained the names of 12 employees under the
heading "Leave of Absence ," the names of 6 employees under the
heading "Economic Leave," and the name of 1 employee under the
heading "Vacation ." The names of employees Dora Conchola,
Eleanor Jaurigi, and P. A. Mclnturff were among the names of em-
ployees listed as on economic leave. The Petitioner urges the Board
to sustain challenges to the ballots of these employees . Petitioner's
representatives checked some of the names under the heading "Leave
of Absence" on the blue list and found them to be included on the
eligibility list. The parties agreed that the employee listed as on
vacation was a guard and ineligible to vote. However , no check was
made of the employees listed as on "Economic Leave" against the
eligibility list nor was their eligibility discussed individually or
as a group.
The director of industrial relations informed Petitioner 's repre-
sentatives that the eligibility list contained the names of all eligible
voters. Petitioner alleges that, in addition, the director asked Peti-
tioner's representatives if they agreed to accept the eligibility list
presented, and they all agreed to accept it as the eligibility list to be
used in the election. Petitioner does not, however , dispute the Re-
gional Director's finding that the eligibility list was neither initialed
nor signed by the parties and that the Board agent in charge of the
election was not informed before the election of the alleged agree-
ment on eligibility.
Petitioner contends that the Employer is bound by the eligibility list
agreed upon by the parties and that, in any event, having omitted the
names of employees on economic leave from the list it submitted, the
Employer is estopped from now urging their eligibility. The Board
does not ordinarily deem a party to have bound itself on issues of eligi-
bility merely by participating in the preparation and checking of an
NORRIS-THERMADOR CORPORATION 1343
eligibility list in advance of an election. Here the parties neither agreed
specifically as to the eligibility of the affected employees after discuss-
ing them by name or job classification, nor expressly agreed that the
list should constitute the entire eligibility list in the compromise of
a dispute over its correctness and completeness. Even assuming the
accuracy of Petitioner's allegations, the parties failed either to sign
the eligibility list or to inform the Board of their alleged agreement
before the election. For these reasons we do not consider either the
Employer's omission of their names from the list, or the informal
agreement allegedly reached by the parties, to be determinative of the
eligibility of the employees on economic leave.2 The eligibility of the
employees in dispute must therefore be determined on the basis of their
status • during the eligibility period.
The Regional Director found, after a detailed examination of the
status of employees on economic leave and the experience of em-
ployees who had in the past been placed on economic leave, that these
employees were temporarily laid off and had reasonable expectation of
reemployment by the Employer within the foreseeable future. He
concluded therefore that they were eligible to vote in the election.
Petitioner excepts to this conclusion on the ground that the Employer
allegedly informed the California Department of Employment that
these employees had been laid off for an indefinite period and that the
Regional Director did not make an effort to establish this fact. We
do not consider the statement allegedly made by the Employer to be
necessarily inconsistent with the Regional Director's findings or con-
clusions concerning the status of the employees on economic leave.
Accordingly, we find the challenges to the ballots cast by these em-
ployees to be without merit.
As Petitioner does not except to the Regional Director's conclusion
that Edward Carrinton was eligible to vote, we find the challenge to
his ballot to be without merit.
The Objections to the Election
In its first objection, the Employer contends that the Board,
in the original Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election,
improperly and unlawfully set aside the first, election conducted in this
proceeding. As this objection raises no issues not previously con-
sidered by the Board in the above-mentioned decision, we find it to
be without merit.
In its second objection, the Employer excepts to the Regional Di-
rector's refusal to count a ballot cast against Petitioner. The Re-
gional Director ruled the ballot void because there was marked on it,
2 Compare , 0. E. Szekely and Associates , Inc., 117 NLRB 42; Consolidated Industries,
Inc., 116 NLRB 1204.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in small numerals below the "NO" square, the number 30445, which
coincides with the badge number of an employee who voted in the
election. Having examined the ballot, we find that the markings in
question were deliberately made and so unique as to give rise to.the
possibility of revealing the identity of the voter. For this reason we
find the Employer's objection, as did the Regional Director, to be
without merit.3
As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's conclusion that
the remaining objections are without merit, we hereby adopt his con-
clusion on these objections. Having found no merit in any of the
Employer's objections to the election or in any of the challenges to
ballots, we hereby overrule both the objections and the challenges.
As the ballots to which challenges have been made and overruled are
sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, we shall direct
that they be opened and counted with the other ballots.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this direction,
open and count the ballots of Edward Carrington, Dora Conchola,
Eleanor Jaurigi, and P. A. McInturff and serve upon the parties a sup-
plemental tally of ballots.]
3 Standard-Coosa -Thatcher Compawy, 115 NLRB 1790; Eagle Iron Works, 117 NLRB
1053.
Commercial Controls Corporation and District Lodge No. 6,
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No.
3-CA-959. September 13,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 23, 1957, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup-
porting brief.
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, Rodgers, and Bean].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
118 NLRB No. 181.