SCM Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 885 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

SCM CORP.
SCM Allied Egry Business, a Division of SCM Cor-
poration and Local 527, International Printing
and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 10-RC-12669
24 May 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
Pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement ap-
proved 14 October 1982, an election by secret
ballot was held 10 November 1982, under the di-
rection and supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 10, among the employees in the stipu-
lated unit.' At the conclusion of the election, the
parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally
was 32 votes for, and 30 against, the Petitioner;
there were 5 challenged ballots, a sufficient number
to affect the results. Thereafter, the Petitioner
timely filed two objections to the conduct affecting
the results of the election.
After investigation, the Regional Director on 3
December 1982 issued an Order Directing Hearing
and Notice of Hearing wherein he concluded that
the objections and challenged ballots raised sub-
stantial and material issues of fact which could best
be resolved by a hearing, and ordered such hearing
on the objections and challenged ballots be held.
Pursuant thereto, a hearing before Hearing Offi-
cer W. Gene Heard was held. On 24 January 1983
the hearing officer issued and served on the parties
her report recommending disposition of the chal-
lenged ballots and the Petitioner's objections. In
her report, the hearing officer recommended that
the challenges to the ballots of employees Ricky
Phillips, Ricky Smith, and Thomas R. Appling be
overruled and that the challenges to the ballots of
employees Hiriam Blackmon and Coleman Gray be
sustained. The hearing officer further recommend-
ed that, in the event a revised tally of ballots
showed that the Petitioner did not attain a majority
of the votes counted, Petitioner's Objection 1
should be sustained and Petitioner's Objection 2
should be overruled, and a new election be con-
ducted. 2 On 3 February 1983 the Employer timely
filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report on
objections and challenged ballots, and brief in sup-
' The stipulated unit is: "All production and maintenance employees,
including local drivers, quality control employees and pre-press employ-
ees, employed by the Employer at its Oakwood facility, but excluding all
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act."
2 Petitioner's Objection I involved the Employer's distribution of a
facsimile ballot to employees at work the day before the election. Peti-
tioner's Objection 2 pertained to purported misrepresentations made by
the Employer's campaign letter to employees dated and mailed 26 Octo-
ber 1982.
port thereof. The Employer contended that the
hearing officer had erred in sustaining the chal-
lenge to Gray's ballot and Petitioner's Objection 1.
Neither the Employer nor the Petitioner took ex-
ceptions to the remainder of the hearing officer's
report and in particular her findings that employee
Gray is not a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and her recommendations
pertaining to the ballots of Appling, Blackmon,
Phillips, and Smith and to Petitioner's Objection
2.3
On 14 November 1983 the Petitioner filed a
motion to withdraw both its election objections so
as to expedite processing of the case. The Employ-
er did not respond to the Petitioner's motion and
has not filed any opposition to the Petitioner's
withdrawal request submitted at this stage in the
proceedings.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's
report, the Employer's exceptions and supporting
brief, and the Petitioner's motion to withdraw its
election objections and hereby adopts the hearing
officer's findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions only to the extent consistent herewith.
After careful consideration, we grant the Peti-
tioner's motion to withdraw its election objections.
We do so in light of our general practice to permit
such withdrawals, the absence of opposition from
the Employer, and the benefits to all parties by ex-
pediting handling of the case.
The only issue remaining is the disposition of
Coleman Gray's challenged ballot. At the election,
the Petitioner challenged the ballot of employee
Coleman Gray on the basis that he was a supervi-
sor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
The hearing officer rejected the Petitioner's con-
tention that Gray was a statutory supervisor but
rather excluded Gray from the unit on a different
ground entirely. The hearing officer found that
Gray's job title, his responsibilities for the Employ-
er's General Services Administration account, and
his attendance at periodic management meetings
where employee relations matters were discussed
showed that Gray did not share a community of in-
terest with the unit employees sufficient to warrant
Gray's inclusion in the unit. Thus, on the basis of a
I In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the hearing
officer's finding that Gray is not a statutory supervisor and her recom-
mendations overruling the challenges to the ballots of Appling, Phillips,
and Smith and sustaining the challenge to Blackmon's ballot. We do not
pass on her findings and recommendation relating to Petitioner's Objec-
tion 2 because of our determination to permit the Petitioner's motion to
withdraw its objections as discussed infra.
270 NLRB No. 119
885
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lack of community of interest, the hearing officer
recommended sustaining the challenge to Gray's
ballot. The Employer has excepted to these find-
ings concerning Gray. We find merit in the Em-
ployer's exceptions. Contrary to the hearing offi-
cer, we find that her conclusion to sustain the chal-
lenge to Gray's ballot is not in accord with the
parties' Stipulated Election Agreement, Board
practice, and the record evidence.
Coleman Gray has been employed by the Em-
ployer for 31 years and presently occupies a posi-
tion in the quality control department. Like other
quality control department employees, Gray is
hourly paid, utilizes a timeclock, wears a work uni-
form indicative of his position in quality control,
and apparently is subject to the same rules, poli-
cies, and supervision of the Employer as other
quality control employees. Although Gray's wage
rates are somewhat higher, his fringe benefits are
comparable to those received by other quality con-
trol employees. Gray, like other quality control
employees, primarily performs inspection duties
relative to customer printing orders and, in doing
so, has regular work-related contact with other
unit employees. The extra job tasks, alluded to by
the hearing officer, do not detract from the similar-
ity between his inspection duties and those assigned
to the other quality control employees.
As exhibited by the parties' Stipulated Election
Agreement, all quality control employees have
been specifically included in the unit description.
Gray is clearly a quality control employee. It is the
Board's established practice to permit parties to
stipulate to the appropriateness of the unit, and to
various inclusions and exclusions, if the agreement
does not violate any express statutory provisions or
established Board policies. White Cloud Products,
214 NLRB 516, 517 (1974); Montefiore Hospital &
Medical Center, 261 NLRB 569 (1982). The parties'
agreement clearly is a valid one. We therefore
overrule the hearing officer's determination in this
regard and we shall include Gray in view of the
parties' stipulated-unit inclusion of quality control
employees.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Regional Director
for Region 10, within 10 days from the date of this
Decision, open and count the ballots of Thomas R.
Appling, Coleman Gray, Ricky Phillips, and Ricky
Smith, and thereafter prepare and cause to be
served on the parties a revised tally of ballots,
upon which basis he shall issue the appropriate cer-
tification.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled
matter be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional
Director for Region 10 for further processing con-
sistent herewith.
886