Precision Tumbling Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1014 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Precision Tumbling Company, Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
Petitioner. Case 7-RC-15693
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered determinative chal-
lenges in an election held on January 3, 1980,1 and
the Hearing Officer's report recommending disposi-
tion of same. The Board has reviewed the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs, and hereby
adopts the Hearing Officer's findings 2 and recom-
mendations.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have not been cast for International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Cerlifica-
tion Upon Consent Election The tally was: three fr, and three against,
the Petitioner; there were two challenged ballots.
2 The Hearing Officer fioured that Evans testified the Employer never
before had "advised her to apply for uneniployment compensation"
However, the record indicates that the Employer's owner. Charles
Sinkler, testified that he had on prior occasions told Evans she could seek
unemployment benefits, but that she had never done so. We do not he-
lieve that this fact requires a contrary result concerning Evans' status
Moreover, the record shows that l.ong, hired by the Employer as a fore-
man subsequent to the layoff of Pierson, performed work in January
1980, and not in December 1979, when Pierson was laid off. That work
was performed subsequent to the holding of the election does not require
a different result on Pierson Relevant portions of the Hearing officer's
report are attached hereto We also deny the etitioner's motion to
remand this case to the Region fior consolidalion ith Case I CA 17387
Implement Workers of America, UAW, and that
said labor organization is not the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees, in the unit herein in-
volved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
MEMBER JENKINS, concurring in part and dissent-
ing in part:
I disagree with my colleagues' disposition of the
challenged ballot of Mary Evans. The Hearing Of-
ficer, finding that there were objective factors indi-
cating that at the tine of the election Evans did
not have a reasonable expectancy of recall, con-
cluded that it was irrelevant whether or not, at the
time Evans was laid off, the Employer told her it
would call her back "the first of the year." This
conclusion, adopted by the majority here, is un-
justified on the facts of the case. The election was
held on January 3, 1980, approximately a month
after Evans was laid off and palpably within the es-
timated "first of the year" duration of the layoff.
Although the Employer also advised Evans to
apply for unemployment compensation during the
layoff, the majority properly finds, contrary to the
Hearing Officer, that the same advice had been
given during previous temporary layoffs.
The information communicated to a laid-off em-
ployee is normally relevant to and is often decisive
of the reasonableness of his expectancy of recall,
Nordam, Inc., 173 NLRB 1153, 1154 (1968); Ameri-
can Printers & Lithographers, Inc., 174 NLRB 1179,
1185-86 (1969). The "objective factors" relied on
here to negate the reasonableness of Evans' expec-
tancy are not so overwhelming as to outweigh, as a
matter of law, any information she received. Cf.
American Printers, supra. Therefore, I would
remand the case to the Hearing Officer for a credi-
bility finding as to what the Employer told Evans,
and for a redetermination of her "reasonable expec-
tancy" based on the whole record.
252 NLRB No. 144
1014