Sperry Rand Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1367 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

REMINGTON RAND DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORP. 1$67
oratory technicians, material planners, production schedulers, and
all other technical employees; professional employees; confidential
employees; plant clerical employees; personnel department employees;
all other employees; and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corp . and Business
Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board,
Local 459, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-1850.
September 16,1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed by the parties on May 16, 1957, an election by secret ballot
was conducted in the stipulated unit on May 28, 1957, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Third
Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were fur-
nished with a tally of ballots which shows that of 21 ballots cast,
10 votes were for the Petitioner, and 11 votes against. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election. On June 27, 1957, following an investigation, the Re=
gionall Director issued his report on objections, in which he found no
merit in the Petitioner's objections and recommended that they be
overruled and that a certification of results of election be issued show-
ing that the Petitioner had not been designated as bargaining repre-
sentative by a majority of the employees. Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the Pe-
titioner's exceptions, and the entire record in this case and 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.
118 NLRB No. 184.
1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the. Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
Typewriter, adding, bookkeeping and calculating machine main-
tenance mechanics, and systems and photo-records servicemen, and
servicemen-dispatchers employed by the Employer in its offices located
at Syracuse, Elmira, Binghamton, and Utica, New York, but exclud-
ing clerical employees, guards, executives, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. The Petitioner's objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election which it has again asserted in its exceptions are as follows :
The Petitioner contends, in substance, that General Service Man-
ager McGuiness invited the Employer's service mechanics to a dinner
a few days before the election and during the evening stated that
service mechanics at other district offices of the Employer not rep-
resented by a union had receive a wage increase of $3.20 a week and
that the instant employees would receive the same raise only if the
Petitioner lost the forthcoming election.
In his investigation, the Regional Director found that McGuiness
made no such statement nor any other promise of benefit or threat of
reprisal, and that no evidence was submitted to support the Peti-
tioner's objections. In its exceptions, the Petitioner contends, in
substance, that its witnesses were reluctant to support its contentions
because they were allegedly admonished by the district manager that
they would not receive the scheduled raise until the objections were
dismissed,' and further contends that during the investigation of the
objections the Employer did not deny the alleged interference but was
in fact willing to admit it. The Petitioner does not, however, contend
that the Regional Director failed to consider the evidence that was
presented to him; nor is. there anything in the exceptions to establish
that the Petitioner is now in a position to adduce at a hearing any
specific evidence in support of its objections which was assertedly
unavailable to it during the course of the investigation. We find,
therefore, that a hearing is not warranted and that the Petitioner's
objections concerning the Employer's conduct do not raise substantial
or material issues affecting the results of the election. We therefore
adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director and hereby over-
1 Even if true , such a statement by the district manager after the election is not,
contrary to the contention of the Petitioner , sufficient evidence to establish that the
general service manager had made the alleged statement prior to the election.
ETHYL CORPORATION 1369
rule the Petitioner's objections. Accordingly, as the Petitioner failed
to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the
results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for the Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Con-
ference Board, Local 459, International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and that said organization is not
the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees in the unit
found appropriate.]
Ethyl Corporation and Cooperative Bargaining Agency of Baton
Rouge, Louisiana,' Petitioner
Ethyl Corporation , Petitioner and Allied Oil Workers Union.
Cases Nos. 15-R-15f7 and 15-RM-98. September 17,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act by the Employer on May 17, 1957, and an order
directing hearing issued by the Board on February 15, 1957,2 a con-
solidated hearing was held before Loren F. Jones, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. In 1946, after a consent election in Case No. 15-R-1527, the Board
certified the Union as bargaining representative for the Employer's
office clerical employees at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana, operations.
That unit specifically excluded, inter alia, confidential secretaries
1 At the hearing , a motion to change the name of this union to Allied Oil Workers
Union, herein called the Union , was granted without objection.
' On December 26, 1956, the Union, which was certified in 1946 as the collective-
bargaining representative of the Employer 's office clerical employees , filed a motion to
clarify the bargaining unit, seeking , in effect, to include certain additional employees.
Thereafter , the Board issued an order directing hearing with respect to the Union's
motion. Because we find, infra, that the employees designated in Case No. 15-RM-98
constitute a residual group of clerical classifications excluded by mutual consent from
the current and historic bargaining unit of clerical employees , and because we also find
such a group entitled to a self-determination election , we hereby dismiss the motion for
clarification in Case No. 15-R-1527. Cf. The Daily Press, Incorporated, 110 NLRB
578, 578.
118 NLRB No. 185.