Southern Press

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 1080 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Regional Director and overrule the objections in their entirety.
Accordingly, as the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify
them as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit.
[The Board certified the United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of the Employer in the appropriate unit ]
Southern Press and Leslie G. Downey, Petitioner and Amal-
gamated Lithographers of America , AFL-CIO. Cage No 21-
UD-45 September 29,1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION
On April 18, 1958, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 9
(e) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, seeking to rescind the
union-shop authorization of the Union Thereafter, on May 9, 1958,
the Acting Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region conducted
an election among the employees in the certified bargaining unit at the
Employer's Los Angeles, California, plant, to determine whether they
desired to withdraw the authority of their bargaining representative
to require, under its agreement with the Employer, that membership
in the Union be a condition of employment Upon completion of the
election, the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally
of ballots The tally showed that of 21 eligible voters, 21 cast ballots,
all of which were challenged by the Union
On May 13, 1958, the Union filed timely objections to the election
The Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and
the challenges, and on July 30, 1958, issued his report on objections and
challenges, recommending that the Union's objections and all the chal-
lenges, except one, be overruled The Union filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's report
-- Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Mem-
bers Bean, Jenkins, and Fanning]
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act
2 The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer
121 NLRB No 143
SOUTHERN PRESS 1081
3. The Petition in this case has been properly filed and complies in
all respects with the provisions of Section 9 (e) (1) of the Amended
Act.
4. All lithographic production employees at the Employer's plant
in Los Angeles, California, including lithographic pressmen, plate-
makers, cameramen, feeders, and apprentices, who were in the employ
of the Employer during the payroll period ending April 25, 1958,
excluding letterpressmen, bindery employees, cutters, truckdrivers,
shipping and receiving employees, office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of an election under
the provisions of Section 9 (e) of the Act.
5. The objections:
Objection No. 1: The Union contends that the petition should have
been dismissed and the election held improper 'on the ground that it
took place within 12 months of the previous election for the determina-
tion of a bargaining representative. We find no merit in this conten-
tion. The election in the instant proceeding was directed under
Section 9 (e) and not 9 (c) of the Act. As no other election herein
has been held among these employees pursuant to Section 9 (e), there
was no violation of the Act.' We therefore adopt the Regional Di-
rector's recommendation to overrule this objection.
Objections 2 and 3: These objections are concerned with the status
of Petitioner Downey, whose ballot was challenged on the ground
that : (a) he was an ' office clerical or managerial employee and was
therefore outside the collective-bargaining unit; (b) the election must
be held invalid because of his alleged status; and finally, (c) the elec-
tion was improper because the authorization cards in support of this
petition were secured coercively from the employees on company time
by the Petitioner who was accompanied in such solicitation by the
Employer.
The investigation revealed that Downey was hired June 19, 1957, as
a camera operator, a classification within the bargaining unit, and that
he continued at that job until April 1, 1958, when the Employer de-
cided to make certain electrical changes to increase the efficiency of the
operations of the camera. During the period of change, Downey was
advised that he would be temporarily transferred to clerical duties,
which he performed until May 15, 1958, 5 days after the election.
However, he did work on the camera at night and during some week-
ends. The Regional Director also found that Downey's clerical duties
did not involve any exercise of supervisory authority. He therefore
concluded that as Downey was only temporarily transferred outside
the unit on the eligibility and election dates, he was eligible to vote.
1 Gilchrist Timber Company, 76 NLRB 1233, 1234.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the question of unlawful participation by the Employer in the
solicitation process, the Regional Director found that the Union had
failed to present any evidence in support of this allegation and that
the investigation failed to reveal any act of coercion. On the con-
trary, the Regional Director found that the Petitioner had secured all
the signatures on his own time and that of the employees, with one
exception. This one signature, although secured on company time,
was not obtained with the approval of management.
In its exceptions, the Union states that it has available evidence in
support of the above challenge and objections,2 and therefore requests
the Board to direct a hearing to resolve these issues of fact. The
Union however, alleges no facts in support of its exceptions. The
Board has consistently held that a party filing objections to an election
is obligated to furnish evidence in support of such objections. Fur-
thermore when, after investigation, exceptions are filed to the Regional
Director's report on objections, the Board has held that it will over-
rule such objections unless the exceptions advert to specific, substan-
tial evidence controverting the Regional Director's conclusions a As
the exceptions here do no more than reiterate the claims in the objec-
tions and advert to no further allegations of fact in support of the
exceptions, we adopt the Regional Director's recommendations that
the challenge to Downey's ballot and the objections relating thereto
be overruled.'
Objection No. 4: The Union further contends that the election was
invalid because the petition was filed in April 1958, before the effec-
tive date of the contract. The investigation showed that the parties
entered into a contract, containing a union security clause, in March
1958, which was to become effective May 1, 1958. This petition was
filed April 18, 1958, 2 weeks prior to the effective date. We agree
with the opinion of Regional Director that the fact that the effective
date of the union-security clause was subsequent to the filing of the
petition is immaterial, and we therefore adopt his recommendation
that this objection be overruled.
We find that the Union's objections and exceptions do not raise sub-
stantial and material issues with respect to the conduct or results of
the election, and they are hereby overruled.
6. The challenges: 5
2 The Union makes the same statement with respect to the challenges to the ballots of
William Root and Richard Ewing, Jr., discussed , infra.
8 See Adler Metal Products , 114 NLRB 170 , and cases cited therein.
A Graphic Arts Finishers, Inc., 118 NLRB 852.
50n advice of its counsel , the Union challenged the ballots of each and every voter
on the ground that the Regional Director had improperly directed the election . As these
challenges also involve objections to the election, we have treated the issue under the
objections , supra.
QUAKER STATE OIL REFINING CORPORATION 1083
In addition to challenging the ballot of Leslie G. Downey, discussed
above, the Union also specifically challenged the ballots of William
Root and Richard Ewing, Jr.
The ballot of William Root was challenged on the ground that he
was a supervisor. The Regional Director's report found that his
challenge was made for the first time in the Union's objections and
was therefore in the nature of a postelection challenge. As it is well
established that challenges to voters may not be raised after an elec-
tion, we adopt the Regional Director's recommendation to overrule
this challenge.'
The ballot of Richard Ewing, Jr., was challenged because he was
the son of the sole owner of Southern Press and was therefore "not a
member of the bargaining unit." The Regional Director recom-
mended that this challenge be sustained upon the ground that Sec-
tion 2 (3) of the Act excludes any individual employed by his parent
from the definition of employee. We adopt the Regional Director's
recommendation.
In view of the above, we find that the challenges to the ballots of
William Root and Leslie G. Downey and to the remaining ballots cast
in the election be overruled and that all such ballots be opened
and counted except that of Richard Ewing, Jr., which challenge is
sustained.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direc-
tion, open and count the ballots of Louis Bass, Willard Bass, Ray
Barnett, Ray Eugene Barnett, Joseph Bosante, Leslie G. Downey,
Roy M. Ewing, Vincent, A. Ferrucio, Richard Grady, Charlotte
Hensher, Joan Johnson, James B. Mercer, Salvador Mills, Joseph
Novotny, William Root, Martin Simanick, Rueben Valencia, William
Veronin, Robert S. Wolgin and Thomas Faulkner, and serve upon
the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.]
The Babcock d Waicox Company , 118 NLRB 944, 945.
Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation, Petitioner and Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 9-RM-171. September 29, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry David Camp,
121 NLRB No. 142.