Platt Electric Supply, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 8, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 143 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 143
Platt Electric Supply, Inc., Employer-Petitioner and
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local No. 58,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America
Platt Electric Supply , Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters
and Helpers, Local No. 58, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Cases 19-RM-1217 and 19-RC-7401
September 8, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On April 25, 1975, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 19 issued a Second Supplemental Decision on
Determinative Challenges and Direction, in which he
adopted a Hearing Officer's finding that James E.
Doherty, Jr., was an eligible voter in the election con-
ducted on February 12, 1975, and directed the open-
ing and counting of his ballot, together with five
other ballots, challenges to which had earlier been
overruled. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer
filed a timely request for review of his decision, on
the ground, inter alia, that he erred in rejecting its
exceptions to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact as
to Doherty's eligibility to vote in the election.
The National Labor Relations Board, by tele-
graphic order dated June 2, 1975, granted review as
to the eligibility of Doherty and denied review in all
other respects. The Employer and Petitioner filed
briefs on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review, includ-
ing the briefs on review, and hereby adopts the Re-
gional Director's Second Supplemental Decision,
with the following additions:
Although Doherty was originally hired as a tempo-
rary employee and worked as such for about a week,
the Hearing Officer found-and credible evidence
establishes-that, during the first week of November
1974, the Employer asked him if he wanted to work
regularly after his classes at a local community col-
lege, and that thereafter he worked 3 to 5 hours a
day, Monday through Friday, and sometimes on Sat-
urday, except during the last week in November
when he worked 3 days. The record indicates that, on
approximately December 2, Doherty requested per-
mission from the Employer to be off from work for
the month of December, which was his school Christ-
mas holiday period, to visit his mother in Hawaii.
The Employer's manager agreed to such leave and
noted the anticipated date of Doherty's return to the
job on a yellow note pad. When Doherty reported to
the plant after his vacation, he ascertained that an
economic strike, which had begun during his ab-
sence, was in progress. At that time, according to his
credited testimony, Doherty told the manager that he
would be glad to return to work part 'time after the
strike was resolved and the manager nodded affirma-
tively. Unlike employees who were admittedly sepa-
rated, Doherty was never given a termination notice.
Our review of the record reveals that, although
Doherty had applied for admission to a college in
Hawaii, it is clear that before his vacation he had
decided not to attend school there, and in fact had
preregistered at his local college in order to be able to
attend school there after Christmas.
On the basis of the foregoing and the record as a
whole, we conclude that Doherty occupied the status
of a regular part-time warehouse employee in No-
vember, was given a leave of absence to visit his
mother in Hawaii during his Christmas vacation, and
would have returned to work for the Employer in the
same status upon his return from Hawaii but for the
economic strike which was in progress affecting the
Employer's warehouse employees. We find, there-
fore, that he was eligible to vote at the time of the
election and affirm the Regional Director's determi-
nation to overrule the challenge to his ballot.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Regional
Director in order that he may proceed further pur-
suant to the direction previously issued by him.'
1 We hereby deny the Employer's motion to reopen the record, as the
additional evidence sought to be introduced would not require a different
result
220 NLRB No. 27