Remington Rand, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 7, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 447 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of REMINGTON RAND, INC., EMPLOYER and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case'No. 2O-R=2194.Decided Jwly 7,1947
DECISION
AND'
DIRECTION
On March 25, 1947, pursuant to the Stipulation For Certification
Upon Consent Election herein dated March 21, 1947, an election by
secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Twentieth Region among the employees
in the unit set forth in the Stipulation. Upon completion of the
election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Stipulation, furnished
a Tally of Ballots to each of the parties.
The Tally shows that of the approximately 30 eligible voters, 10
cast ballots for, and 11 against, the Petitioner; 11 ballots were chal-
lenged.
Inasmuch as the counting of the challenged ballots was sufficient
to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, in accord-
ance with the Stipulation and the Board's Rules and Regulations,
investigated the challenges. The acting Regional Director there-
upon issued and duly served upon the parties a Report on Challenged
Ballots, dated April 15, 1947, recommending therein that the chal-
lenges to the ballots of Dean Bailey, Royal Barney, Barbara Math-
russe, Florence McGarvey, and Wilma Weems, be sustained, that the
challenges to the ballots of Paul De Martini, Marianne Giannattasio,
Clinton Maerten, Geneva Mateer, and Leonard Udd, be overruled, and
that the challenge to the ballot of Charles Morris remain unresolved
at this time. The Employer and the Petitioner filed exceptions to
this report. Inasmuch as the exceptions raised substantial and ma-
terial issues, the Board ordered a hearing. A hearing was held at
San Francisco, California, on May 19, 1947, before Robert E. Till-
man, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing, are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
74 N. L. R. B., No. 81. 447
755420-48-vol. 74-30
.448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Remington Rand, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having its principal
office in New York City, is engaged in the business of manufacturing
office equipment and supplies. It has places of business in a number
of cities in various States, including San Francisco, California, where
there is located one of its printing shops, designated as Factory 20
and the only operation with which we are here concerned. During
1946, the Employer manufactured and sold more than $1,000,000
worth of finished merchandise, of which more than $100,000 represents
sales of products manufactured at Factory 20.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
nvithin the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.,
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOL'VED
The Petitioner is.a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
:bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
.of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer's card print-
ing shop (Factory 20), excluding office, clerical and all supervisory
-employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
.of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
A. Ballots challenged by the Petitioner
Barbara Mathrusse: This employee was hired on October 30, 1946,
as a typist and bindery worker. Her duties at that time included
I We have previously found the Employer to be engaged in commerce. Matter of
Remington Rand, Inc., 71 N. L. R. B. 626; 62 N. L. It. B. 1419; 57 N. L. It. B. 544; 56
N. L. It. B. 251.
REMINGTON RAND, INC. 449
handling orders for the 6th floor, preparing labels for individual
packages, making out shipping copies, labelling packages, filing
samples, withdrawing samples from job tickets, sending samples once
every week or every 2 weeks to various offices, and assembling and
completing order documents for transmittal to the cost department.
Her desk was situated in the factory proper, about 8 feet away from
the office: On November 25, 1946, Josephine Sacco was hired to take
the place of Mathrusse, who was asslgned'to an office job after trail-
ing the new employee. However, Sacco was unable to perform all of
the duties required of her, thus making it necessary for Mathrusse to
assist her. The parties are in dispute as to just how much time
Mathrusse spent at the time of the election helping Sacco, but it
appears that at least 50 percent of her time was devoted to production
work. We find, therefore, that she was an eligible voter on the date
of the election, and we shall overrule the challenge to her ballot.
Florence YlcGarvey: Although this employee was hired prior to
February 20, 1947, the eligibility pay-roll date, she did not commence
working until February 28, 1947.1 She had not, therefore, commenced
work prior to or during the pay-roll period which determined eligibil-
ity. We find that McGarvey was not an eligible voter,3 and shall sus-
tain the challenge to her ballot.
Leonard Udd: The Regional Director found that at the time of the
election Udd operated a machine and acted as a janitor, and recom-
mended that lie be found to be an eligible voter. Inasmuch as no ex-
ceptions were taken to this finding and recommendation, we sustain the
recommendation of the Regional Director, and find that he was an
eligible voter. Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenge to Udd's
ballot.
Wilma Weems: The Petitioner contends that this employee quit her
job prior to the eligibility pay-roll date, while the Employer claims
that she was granted a leave of absence. The record shows that Weelns
was hired as a press operator on March 29, 1946, and that she worked
continuously thereafter until December 13, 1946. About 10 days be-
fore December 13, Weems told the Employer's plant manager that she
wanted about 7 or 8 weeks' leave so that she could visit her mother in
Kansas, and stated that she would not take the time off if her job
wouldn't be held open for her. The plant manager at that time told
her that her job would be held open for her, and gave her permission to
take leave.4 About February 1, 1947, a friend of Weems told the
2 We note that the strike did not begin until February 24, 4 days after the eligibility
pay-roll date. McGaive, therefore, «as not prevented from working during the determina-
tive pay-roll period because of the strike
3 Matter of General Chem ical Works, 67 N L R B 174.
4 Her employment card was marked "Wilma Weems, 12/13/47 (sic), taking time off to
visit mother, expects to be back around February 1st Advised her the job would be
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant manager that she had received a letter from Weems stating that
she wished to have her leave extended for several weeks so that she
could have some dental work done. The plant manager informed
Weems' friend that permission was, granted and that he would take
Weems back as soon as she returned. At the time Weems cast her
ballot she stated that she took a leave of absence in December 1946
.with permission of the plant manager, for a period of 3 months, and
that she returned to San Francisco on March 1, 1947.5
We find that Weems took a leave of absence from the Employer's em-
ploy on December 13, 1946, and expected to return to work on the
termination of her leave. She was, therefore, an eligible voter on the
date of the election, and we shall, accordingly, overrule the challenge
to her ballot.6
B. Ballots challenged by the Employer
Dean Bailey: Although this employee's name appears on the eligi-
bility list submitted by the Employer, the record reveals that after
the strike occurred he was employed by another firm as a job trainee
under the G. I. Bill. The Regional Director found that he does not
intend to return to work for the Employer. No exception was taken
to the Regional Director's finding or to his recommendation that the
challenge to Bailey's ballot be sustained. We find, therefore, that he
was not an eligible voter on the date of the election, and shall sustain
the challenge to his ballot.
Royal Barney: This employee was hired on January 14, 1947, and
worked continuously until February 14, 1947, when he left San Fran-
cisco to visit his sister in Alaska. However, when he reached Seattle
he received word of the death of his mother. He then returned to
San Francisco. At the time he left the Employer's employ on Feb-
ruary 14, he stated that he didn't like his job and was going to quit.
On March 26, after his ballot was challenged on March 25, he wrote
to the plant manager of the Employer telling of his change in plans
and stating that he "would like very much to have [his] old job back,
if it is all right with" the plant manager. A reply was sent to Barney
on March 28 informing him that since his resignation other arrange-
available " On the back of the same card the following appears under the heading
"Termination Report" • "Would you consider re-employing? Yes Taking leave of absence
to visit mother will rehire as soon as she returns "
6 The only evidence to contradict any of the above consists of the testimony given at
the hearing by a witness who stated that she was hired to replace Weems This witness
also stated that someone had read to her part of a letter written by Weems in which
Weems said she had no intention of returning to work for the Employer
a In view of our finding herein, we deny the Employer's motion to reopen the hearing
with reference to Weems' status The cross motion of the Petitioner to strike therefore
becomes moot, and we deny it.
REMINGTON RAND, INC. 451
ments had been made for the work previously performed by him, and
that no opening was available at that time . We find that Barney quit
his employment on February 14, 1947, and that he was, therefore,
ineligible to vote on March 25, 1947. Accordingly, we shall sustain
the challenge to his ballot.
Paul De Martini: The Employer challenged this employee on the
ground that he left its employ and secured a permanent position else-
where. De Martini was hired on November 7, 1946, and worked as a
packer until the commencement of the strike. At the beginning of
March, he applied for and obtained employment with the Bank of
America as a furniture refinisher . His name appears on the eligibility
list prepared by the Employer. At no time did De Martini inform
the Bank of America that he was on strike or intended to return to
work for the Employer. The Bank of America hired him upon the
assumption that he was to be a permanent employee. Prior to the
election, De Martini did not indicate in any way that he intended to
return to work for the Employer on the termination of the strike. We
find that he was ineligible to vote, and sustain the challenge to his
ballot.?
Marianne Giannattasio: This employee's name was on the eligibility
pay roll submitted by the Employer. She had been continuously
employed as a press operator from December 17, 1946, until the strike
started on February 24, 1947. The Regional Director found that she
had not ,quit and that she was an eligible voter on the date of the
election. Inasmuch as no exceptions were taken to the Regional
Director 's findings or to his recommendation that the challenge to her
ballot be overruled , we sustain the findings and recommendation of the
Regional Director and find that she was an eligible voter on the date
of the election . Accordingly , Ave shall overrule the challenge to her
ballot.
Clinton Maerton : The Employer contends that Maerton is a super-
visor, and therefore should not be included in the unit . The Peti-
tioner claims that he is a working foreman, and that in the printing
industry such foremen are customarily included in production and
maintenance units. Maerton's name did not appear on the eligibility
list. However , Maerton has the power effectively to recommend
changes in the status of other employees , and inasmuch as the appro-
priate unit set forth in the stipulation of the parties excludes em-
ployees having such supervisory authority , we find that Maerton was
not an eligible voter, and shall sustain the challenge to his ballot.
° See Matter of Horton's Laundry, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B. 1129.
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Ballots challenged by the Board's agent
Geneva Mateer: The name of this employee does not appear on the
eligibility list. Mateer was employed on a permanent part-time basis
on February 5, 1947. She worked an average of 26.25 hours per week
until the employees went on strike. She is the only employee at the
plant able to operate the hand feed ruling machine. The Employer
indicated at the hearing that it had employed her permanently on a
part-time basis. We find that she was an eligible voter and shall over-
rule the challenge to her ballot.$
Charles Morris: Inasmuch as there is an unfair labor practice charge
pending with reference to the discharge of this employee, we shall
defer our ruling on the challenge to his ballot.
As indicated above, we have found that Florence McGarvey, Dean
Bailey, Royal Barney, Paul De Martini and Clinton Maerton were
not entitled to vote in the election. We hereby sustain the challenge
to the ballots of these employees and declare their ballots invalid.
We further found that Barbara Mathrusse, Leonard Udd, Wilma
Weems, Marianne Giannattasio, and Geneva_ Mateer were eligible to
vote in the election. We, therefore, overrule the challenges to the
ballots of these employees and declare their ballots valid. Since the
results of the election may'depend upon the counting of the six ballots
declared valid, we shall direct that they be opened and counted.
DIRECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Remington Rand, Inc., San Fran-
cisco, California, Factory 20, the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Direction, open and count the challenged ballots of Barbara M:athrusse,
Leonard Udd, Wilma Weems, Marianne Giannattasio, and Geneva
Mateer, and shall, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served upon the-
parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction.
8 Matter of The Harrison Steel Castings Company, 63 N L R B 5S5, and 71 N. L R. B.
363, Matter of E. H. Sargent and Company, 72 N L. R. B 220.