Southeastern Clay Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

,r
In the Matter of SOUTHEASTERN CLAY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED
CEMENT, LIME AND GYPSUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, #249,
AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-d464.Decided April 25,1947
Mr. Paul H. Sanders, of Atlanta,-Ga., for the` Employer.
Mr. Claude R. 117hite, of Perry, Ga., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board. - I '
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon 'a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on
February 20, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among employees
of the Employer in the appropriate unit, to determine whether or not
they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the par-
ties. The Tally shows that of approximately 37 eligible voters, 19
cast ballots for, and 18 against, the Petitioner.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Aiken; South Carolina, on March
5, 1947, before Alba B. Martin, hearing officer. At the hearing the
Employer made an offer to prove that its employees were coerced into
joining and voting for the Petitioner by certain statements of Peti-
Aiongr's representatives. The hearing officer rejected evidence with
respect to the offer. We hereby overrule the hearing officer in this
respect All other rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
- Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following : -
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Southeastern Clay Company, a South Carolina corporation having
its office and plant in Aiken, South Carolina, is engaged in the business _
of mining and processing clay. The principal- raw material which it
uses in its operations is clay, all of which originates within the State of
1 This offer of proof is discussed in Section V. -
73 N L. R B., No. 118.
614
SOUTHEASTERN CLAY COMPANY 615
,South Carolina. During 1946, it sold clay products valued in excess
of $100,000, of which about 95 percent represented shipments to points
outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is ,a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Pe-
titioner 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 em-
ployees of the Employer, excluding office and clerical employees, 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 purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE OBJECTIONS
As indicated above, a rehearing election was held among the em-
ployees of the Employer in the appropriate unit. The Employer ob-
j ects to the election on the grounds that (1) -an ineligible person,
Brandon Hartley, voted at the election, and (2) the Petitioner coerced
employees into joining , and voting for, the Petitioner.
As to the first objection , Brandon Hartley's name was included on
the eligibility list furnished by the Employer and agreed to by all
parties before the election . He was permitted to vote without objec-
tion and without challenge . The Employer made its first objection
to Hartley 's voting several days after the election.,
Hartley, who is classified as a laborer, has been employed by the
Employer for about 3 years on an irregular basis. When he is not
working for the Employer he engages in farming. During the work-
week covered by the February 6 pay roll, which was the pay roll used
in determining eligibility to vote, Hartley worked 10 hours. During
the preceding 4 weeks he worked, respectively, 45, 14, 39 and 54 hours.
Following the election, he did not work again until the week ending
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
March 2. During that week he worked 32 hours. There is no evi-
dence as to why Hartley did not work during the intervening 'period.
It is clear, however, that Hartley did, not tell the Employer that he
was quitting and that the Employer did not discharge him. We are
of the opinion and we find that Hartley falls within the category of
a regular part-time employee and is, therefore, included in the unit.
We further find that he was an employee of the Employer on the day
of the.election and was, therefore, eligible to vote. Accordingly, the
Employer's, first objection is hereby overruled.
As to the Employer's second objection, the Employer offered to
prove that "at meetings of [its] employees called by union representa-
tives, they were told collectively, that in the event the Union won-the
election, that each of them' must join the Union or quit his job."
Assuming, arguendo, that the Petitioner's representatives did make
these alleged statements, they do not warrant invalidating the elec-
tion. As we have previously held,'such statements are in the nature of
legitimate campaign propaganda and do not preclude the-employees
from freely exercising their choice at the polls 2 Accordingly, we
find this objection to be without merit and it is hereby overruled.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Inasmuch as the results of the election show that the Petitioner has
secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Peti-
tioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Cement, Lime and Gypsum
Workers International Union, #249, A. F. L., has been designated and
selected by a majority of the employees of Southeastern Clay Com=
parry, Aiken, South Carolina, excluding office-and clerical employees,'
and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, (jr effectively recommend- such- action, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a). of the -Act, the said organization is the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees in such unit for -the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment. -
CHAIRMAN HPRZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
2 Matter of Maywood Hosiery MilL8, Inc., 64 N . L R. B. 146 ; see also Matter of American
Dredging Company, 71 N L. R B. 401 , where the Board held that a similar statement
"merely indicated the ligitimate consequences of the A. F. of L. winning the election and
obtaining a closed shop agreement." -