Rockwell Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorized by it. Nor do they show that the Petitioner ratified the
conduct he is alleged to have engaged in. Moreover, under the cir-
cumstances described above, we are unable to find that Daly's alleged
conduct created a general atmosphere of confusion or fear of re-
prisal which rendered impossible a free election. This objection,
therefore, is also overruled.8
As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as the
tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the
valid ballots cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers, Local Union 941, as the collective-bargaining represen-
tative of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appro-
priate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.]
8 Newth-Morris Box Company , 119 NLRB 1382; Kay Manufacturing Corporation, 121
NLRB 1.077; Bronze Alloys Company, 120 NLRB 682.
Rockwell Manufacturing Company (Kearney, Nebraska, Divi-
sion ) and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 17-RC-2736. December 31, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on July 11, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted
on July 31, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Seventeenth Region among the - employees
in the appropriate unit. Following the election, the Regional Di-
rector served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 81 eligible voters, 78 cast ballots, of which 37 were
for and 36 were against the Petitioner. There were five challenged
ballots, a number sufficient to affect the results of the election.
On August 5, 1958, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. Pursuant to the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the challenges and
objections, and, on October 31, 1958, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on challenges and objections. In his report,
the Regional Director found that the challenges and objections
raised substantial and material issues of fact, and recommended
that a hearing be held thereon.. The Employer has filed timely ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report.
1 Unpublished.
122 NLRB No. 99.
ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 799
A. The challenged ballots
The ballots of five leadmen were challenged by the Petitioner on
the ground that these employees were supervisors, although the
,Board had found to the contrary in its initial Decision and Direc-
tion of Election. On the basis of his investigation, the Regional
Director concluded that the job duties and responsibilities of the
leadmen were not fully reflected by the record made in the initial
hearing. He based this conclusion on "indications that these lead-
men . . . exercise responsible direction of employees," and the fact
that an official of the Employer stated at a meeting, subsequent to
the original hearing but prior to the election, that the Board's
"Decision and Direction of Election was wrong, [and] that leadmen
did have authority to responsibly direct other employees."
The question of the leadmen's supervisory status was fully liti-
gated at the original hearing, and a substantial amount of evidence
was adduced on this issue. There was ample evidence on which the
Board could, and did, find that the leadmen were not supervisors.
In the case of .Stokely-Bordo.2 which we deem to be controlling here,
the Board refused to reconsider by way of challenges its original
decision that certain employees were casuals. As in Stokely-Bordo,
the Petitioner in the instant case gives no reason for its failure to
bring sufficient evidence in support of its position to the Board's
.attention at the proper time, i.e., at the hearing. Furthermore, the
'Petitioner could have filed a motion for reconsideration at sometime
between the issuance of the Decision and the date of the election, but
did not do so. In such circumstances, the Board will not allow a
party to reopen the record by means of challenges to ballots.3 Ac-
cordingly, we adhere to our original decision, and shall direct that
the challenged ballots be opened and counted.
B. The objections
In its objections, the Petitioner alleged that the Employer engaged
in conduct affecting the results of the election by (1) interfering
with, intimidating, and interrogating its employees; (2) forcibly in-
terfering with Petitioner's distribution of handbills; and (3) con-
tributing financial assistance to certain employees. The Employer
has excepted to the Regional Director's finding that these objections
raise substantial and material issues of fact, and his recommendation
that a hearing thereon be held. We have considered the Petitioner's
objections, the Regional Director's report, and the Employer's ex-
ceptions, and adopt the Regional Director's findings and recommen-
dations with respect thereto.
2 121 NLRB 936.
3 Stoker-Bordo , supra ; Bon Marche, 118 NLRB 1621.
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the challenged ballots would be determinative of the results of
the election if the Petitioner received a majority of the votes cast,
we shall direct that they be opened and counted . Accordingly, if
the Petitioner receives a majority of the valid votes cast , we shall
direct that the Regional Director issue a certification to Petitioner
as the collective -bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit heretofore found appropriate. However, if the Petitioner does
not receive a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall direct that a
hearing be held on the objections to determine the issues raised by
the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Seven-
teenth Region shall , within ten ( 10) days from the date of this
Direction , open and count the challenged ballots, and serve upon
the parties a supplemental tally of ballots and issue certification.]
[The Board ordered that, in the event the Petitioner does not
receive a majority of the valid votes cast, the Regional Director
shall conduct a hearing on the issues raised by the Regional Direc-
tor's report on objections and the Employer's exceptions thereto.]
[The Board further ordered that, in the event such a hearing is
held, the hearing officer serve upon the parties a report containing
resolutions of the credibility of witnesses , findings of fact, and rec-
ommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the objections.
Within ten (10) days of receipt of such report, any party may file
with the Board in Washington, D.C., an original and six copies of
exceptions thereto. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions,
the party filing shall serve a copy upon each of the other parties,
and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. If no exceptions
are filed, the Board will adopt the hearing officer 's recommendations.]
[The Board further ordered that the above-entitled matter be
referred to the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region for
disposition.]
[However, the Petitioner has filed a charge against the Employer
in Case No. 17-CA-1366, containing allegations similar to those in
the Petitioner's objections. The Regional Director advises that a
complaint based on this charge has issued. The Regional Director
is hereby authorized to consolidate the hearings in Cases Nos. 17-
RC-2736 and 17-CA-1366. In the event such consolidation is made,
the duly designated Trial Examiner is hereby directed to include in
his Intermediate Report and Recommended Order recommendations
with respect to the issues raised by the Regional Director's report
on objections , and the Employer 's exceptions thereto.]
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Direction, and Order.