Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 824 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
responsible for the operation of his department and directs the work
of the other six employees in the milkroom bottling department. In
view of these factors, we find that the foreman of the milkroom
bottling department is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the
unit 35
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees 36
at the Employer's Albert Lea and Twin Lakes, Minnesota, plants,
including all truckdrivers,37 the fieldman for the quality control pro-
gram on manufactured milk and cream, the laboratory tester, and
the butterfat tester, but excluding office clerical employees, retail store
employees,"' the supervisor of quality control and field service, the
fieldman for grade A milk service and supervision, the foreman of
the milkroom bottling department, the supervisor of farm pickup,
the supervisor of the bulk division," and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 18-RC-3357.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3o Pearl Packing Company, 116 NLRB 1489.
ao Since the record does not reveal whether employees laid off at the end of the Twin
Lakes plant's peak season have a reasonable expectancy of reemployment , such laid-off em-
ployees may vote subject to challenge , and we will further investigate the facts relating
to their status in the event that their votes become determinative of the results of the
election.
34 As indicated above, this category includes all farm can pickup haulers, all bulk tank
pickup haulers , and all retail and wholesale salesmen.
38 The parties agreed to the exclusion of the two employees who work in the Employer's
retail store
- 3o Although the UPWA and the Employer agreed that the supervisor of the bulk division
should be included because he spends the greater portion of his time performing non-
supervisory duties, the testimony indicates that he performs functions similar to those of
the supervisor of farm pickup , whom the same parties agreed is a supervisor and should
be excluded . Since the testimony indicates that those functions include the authority
to hire and fire or effectively recommend such action, me find that the supervisor of the
bulk division is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and exclude him from the
unit, notwithstanding the agreement of the parties . Jones-Dabney Company, Division of
Devoe & Raynolds Co, 116 NLRB 1556.
Sylvania Electric Products , Inc. and International Union of Elec-
trical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 6-RC-1851 and 6-RC-1852. December 13, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued March 22,
1957,1 elections by secret ballot were conducted on April 12, 1957,
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and orders.
119 NLRB No. 112.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 825.
among the employees of the Employer in the units found appropriate
by the Board. At the conclusion of the elections, tallies of ballots,
were furnished the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations. The tally in Case No. 6-RC-1851 showed that of
approximately 1,190 eligible voters, 1,145 cast ballots, of which 282
were cast for the International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO; 383 were cast for the International
Association of Machinists and its Local Lodge 2173, AFL-CIO; 402
were cast for United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America, and its Local 639; 2 and 65 were cast against participating
labor organizations. There were 13 challenged ballots. The tally in
Case No. 6-RC-1852 showed that of approximately 599 eligible voters,
including 98 challenged votes, 588 cast ballots, of which 170 were cast
for IUE ; 167 were cast for International Association of Machinists,
and its Local Lodge 2174, AFL-CIO ; 101 were cast for United Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and its Local 636; 3
52 were cast against participating labor organizations. There were
98 challenges, which were sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election. On April 19, 1957, the IUE filed objections in Case
No. 6-RC-1851. On the same day the UE timely filed objections,
amended on April 22, 1957, to the election in Case No. 6-RC-1852.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director, after investigation, issued and duly served upon
the parties his reports. In his report on objections in Case No.
6-RC-1851, he found that none of the objections raised substantial
and material issues with respect to the election, and recommended
that these objections be overruled. In his report on objections and
challenged ballots in Case No. 6-RC-1852, he found that the objec-
tions raised substantial and material issues and recommended that a
hearing be held. He further recommended that 86 challenges be sus-
tained ; that it was unnecessary to rule on 8 challenges because such
determination would not affect the results of the election; and that the
remaining 4 challenges be overruled. Thereafter, the IUE and UE
timely filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the objections, excep-
tions and briefs of the IUE and the UE, and the Regional Director's
reports, the Board 4 finds :
Case No. 6-RC-1851, Emporium, Pennsylvania, Plant
As no exceptions were filed, we adopt the Regional Director's find-
ings and recommendations that the IUE's objections 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7
be, overruled. Accordingly, we shall consider only objections 1 and 4.
.2 Referred to herein respectively as IUE , TAM, and UH.
3 Referred to hereinafter respectively as TAM and UE.
4 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 [ Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins]
826 DECISIONS* OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objection 1' is based on the alleged discriminatory discharge of
employee George Shadman, the subject of unfair labor practice
charges filed by the IUE in Case No. 6-CA-1136. The Regional
Director, after investigation, refused to issue a complaint. The IUE
appealed to the General Counsel from this ruling. The Regional
Director's recommendation that the objection be overruled accords
with well-established Board policy.' Further, the Board will not
delay this representation proceeding despite the pending appeal from
the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint.6 Accordingly,
we overrule this objection.
In objection 4, the IUE alleged that the Employer and the IAM,
the contracting union, refused to process grievances for employees
unless they became JAM members. The Regional Director's investi-
gation revealed and the IUE submitted no evidence of any such
conduct by the Employer. As to the IAM, he found that he was
precluded by the rule in the A cC P case from considering all incidents
occurring prior to March 22, 1957, the date of the Board's Decision and
Direction of Elections.'
With respect to the remaining two incidents which may have
occurred after March 22, the report states that one concerned employee
George Ludwig. According to the IUE, Ludwig had filed a grievance-
in April 1957 and had been advised that the IAM chief steward refused
to handle it. According to the IAM and the grievance records, the
grievance had been filed prior to March 22 and was being processed
as early as February. Further the IAM chief steward denied refusing
to process the grievance. The Regional Director found, and we
agree, that the Ludwig-Krellner incident occurred prior to March 22,
the A & P cutoff date, and that, in any event, the evidence did not
establish that any threat of refusal or refusal to process the grievance,
because of non-IAM membership was made.
The second incident allegedly occurred on or about April 1, 1957,
between George Shadman, an IUE adherent, and Charles. Schwab,.
Jr., IAM steward. Shadman stated that while passing out leaflets
about April 1, 1957, he asked Schwab whether his grievance (referring
to one of November 1956) was not processed due to non-IAM mem-
bership; that Schwab agreed; and later asked "When you fellows in
the machine shop won't cooperate with the I. A. M., what do you
expect the I. A. M. to do for you?"; that Shadman said, "How do you
expect the men in the machine shop to cooperate with the I.A.M. when
layoffs like the one that just took place, completely out of seniority,
c Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361 . The Kinsman Transit Company, 78
NLRB 78; Columbia Pictures Corporation, et al., 85 NLRB 1085; Shipowners Association
of the Pacific Coast, 110 NLRB 479; and Garner Aviation Service Corporation, 114 NLRB
293.
e Cuneo Press of Indiana , 114 NLRB 764.
r The Great Atlantic h Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 118 , as modified by F. W.
Woolworth Company, 109 NLRB 1446.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 827
happens?"; and that Schwab replied, "That's not all that's going to
be hurt if the men in the shop don't learn to cooperate." Schwab
recalled Shadman's inquiry as to his grievance to have been made
when it was pending in the third step of the grievance procedure.
The Employer's answer at the third step issued December 1956. How-
ever, Schwab denied telling Shadman that his grievance was not
processed due to non-IAM membership.
While the Regional Director could not determine conclusively
whether this incident occurred subsequent to the A c0 P cutoff date,
we agree with him that in any event this incident, initiated by
Shadman, standing alone, was too isolated to constitute interference
sufficient to warrant setting aside an election among more than 1,100
employees.8
We therefore overrule IUE's objection 4.
We find, accordingly, that as the IUE's objections and exceptions
have been found to be without merit and overruled, and as the tally
shows that none of the participating labor organizations received a
majority of the votes cast, we shall direct that a runoff election be
held in Case No. 6-RC-1851.
Case No. 6-RC-1852, Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, Plant
In its objections, the UE alleged that the IAM, less than 24 hours
prior to the commencement of the election, circulated among the
employees of the Employer photostats of a forged letter allegedly
written by the UE, and thereby impaired the employees' exercise of
free choice in the election.'
As detailed in the report, the election was scheduled to begin at
7 a. m. on April 12, 1957. About 3:15 p. m. on April 11, when
representatives of all unions were distributing leaflets at the plant
gate, Stuart, IAM Grand Lodge representative, received approxi-
mately 50 photostatic copies of a letter which is the subject of the
UE's objection. These photostats were then widely circulated by
TAM representatives among the employees during the rest of the day
and evening and on election day.
This letter,10 purportedly sent by Elizabeth Overby, an interna-
tional representative of the UE, to James Matles, the director of
8 Shoreline Enterprises of America, 114 NLRB 716, 718 ; Gastonia Comb Yarn Corpora-
tion, 109 NLRB 585, 588 ; and Morganton Fall-Fashioned Company, 107 NLRB 1534,
1537-38. The fact that in October 1956, prior to the A & P cutoff date , another IUE
adherent was allegedly told that the IAM intended to discriminate against nonmembers
by refusing to process their grievances does not affect our ultimate conclusion.
9 The UE's original objection filed on April 19, 1957, stated that the circulation occurred
on April 10 , 1957, less than 48 hours before the election . The Regional Director found,
contrary to the IUE , that the UE 's amendment of April 22, 1957 , stating that the circu-
lation occurred on April 11, 1957; less than 24 hours before the election , did not constitute
a significant and substantial change in the objections . No exceptions were filed to this
finding, which we adopt.
10 A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Appendix A.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization of the UE, contained the following statements to which
the UE particularly objected : (1) "I've never run into as dumb a
bunch of people as work in this plant. They simply are backward
and don't give a damn about bettering themselves with`UE and our
program"; (2) "I hope you appreciate the great lengths we had to
go to to get those names, some at great personal sacrifice to myself and
Sylvia. Of course, since we got some of the names, several of those
men have made it clear in the shop that they aren't supporting us.
That's just one of the things I mean about the people here"; and
(3) "as per your idea on who should be sent in here after the election,
I feel you should send in an altogether new Staff Man, because we
have had to go overboard in making promises to these people and
could `explain' things better."
After UE International Representative Elizabeth Overby, alleged
author of the letter, had read it, she charged that it was a forgery.
According to Overby, IAM Representative Stuart replied, "If it's
a forgery, then sue." According to Stuart, however, he replied that
the UE could try to prove that the'letter was not true and that the
UE could get themselves more lawyers. Stuart then told her that
it was in the mail on its way to Matles in New York, who received
it the next day. Beginning at 6 in the morning, 1 hour before the
election, the UE distributed at the plant gate a circular branding
the letter as a forgery.
Although the leaflet "Men Say-Vote UE," referred to in the
letter, was admittedly prepared and distributed by the UE, the UE
asserts that the letter itself was a fabrication and that the signature
"Liz" thereon was a forgery. Overby denied that she wrote this
letter or that it bore her signature. In support thereof, she averred
that she never used quotation marks around the name Liz; that
she never had letter heads like that on which the letter in question was
written; that the letter referred to her failure to submit a report
which in fact had been submitted; that the letter alluded to recent
activity in an Altoona plant although she had had no connection
with such plant for approximately 18 months; that the letter referred
to negotiations at a "Service Shop" when she knew of no such shop
in the area and had carried on no negotiations of any kind for
approximately a year; and that the letter differed from her man-
ner of typing, composingi and addressing of letters. The UE also
asserted that it had no such stationery. Further, it submitted the
written statement of Albert D. Osborn, examiner of questioned docu-
ments, who was of the opinion that the signature "Liz" on the letter
was a forgery."
ar The complete summary of Osborn's report reads as follows :
To summarize this report, I would say, first, that the signature, "Liz" is definitely
a forgery. Secondly, the letter of April 8, 1957 was typed on a Royal Pica type
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 829
The IAM admits distribution of the letter but denies knowledge
that it was forged. According to the IAM, the letter in question,
along with several letters addressed to the IAM, was found on the
morning of April 11 on the floor inside the door of the IAM office
and the envelope was marked "Return to Sender" and "Insufficient
Postage." Stuart, IAM representative, opened the envelope which
contained the letter in question, the UE circular "Men Say-Vote
UE" and another UE circular. He called the IAM legal depart-
ment for permission to distribute the letter as campaign material.
After providing for distribution, Stuart later that' day marked the
envelope "opened by error" and had it remailed at another post office,
3 miles away to the addressee, UE Representative Matles, who
received it the following morning.
The Regional Director's investigation revealed that the Mill Hall
Post Office apparently did not handle the letter as it normally would
have done if the letter had been returned from another post office;
that the postman did not recall delivering the letter in question;
that he normally did not slide mail under the door of the IAM
office but rather delivered it to the IAM office if open, or to the
IAM's neighboring landlord, who placed the mail on the office desk;
that neither of the post offices involved used the type of marking
stamps used on the envelope; that there was no evidence that any
postage was added after the letter was allegedly returned for insuffi-
cient postage.
As the Regional Director was of the opinion that the election should
be set aside if the letter was a forgery, he recommended a formal
hearing to determine whether the letter was a forgery and whether
the IAM was responsible therefor. The IUE excepts to the Regional
Director's failure to overrule the UE's objections, and to his recom-
mendation of a hearing. The UE also excepts on the ground that
a formal hearing is not required. We find merit only in the UE's
exception. We believe, on the basis of the foregoing and upon the
record as a whole, that the evidence herein is sufficient to establish,
and to permit a conclusive determination to be made, that the letter in
question is a forged document and we so find. With respect to the
IAM's responsibility for the forgery, while there is nothing in the
record to establish that the IAM had prepared the forged document,
it does show that after the IAM had been warned by the UE as to the
fraudulent character of the document, the IAM distributed the for-
machine, the model made from 1920 to 1948 . Such a machine does not appear in any
of the typing of the United Electrical typed letters and papers. Thirdly, I cannot
definitely place the source of this typing. Finally, as regards the envelope, I cannot
say whether it was actually hand stamped "RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT
POSTAGE" in the Post Office or not, not having their stamps. The envelope is
roughened in the field near the present stamp as though another stamp may have
been on it . And the surface of the paper has more of a shine in this field due probably
to the remains of mucilage.
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gery to the employees. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, we
believe that the IAM, which distributed the forgery, should be held
responsible for the concomitant effects upon the employees result-
ing from such distribution even though this distribution may have
occurred in good faith.
It is the rule of the Board that, absent threats or other elements
of intimidation, it will not undertake to censor or police union cam-
paigns or consider the truth or falsity of official union utterances
unless the ability of the employees to evaluate such utterances has
been so impaired by the use of forged campaign material or other
campaign trickery that the uncoerced desires of the employees cannot
be determined in an election.12 The Board had occasion to apply
this principle in the United Aircraft case, which also involved a forged
document.13 In that case, the Board found that the deliberate decep-
tion as to the source of the document so blinded the employees as to
the significance of its contents that they could not recognize it as a
forgery or evaluate it as propaganda and that this conduct lowered
the standards of campaigning to a point which impaired a free choice
of bargaining representative and required setting aside the election.14
We agree with the Regional Director that the decision in the United
Aircraft case is applicable herein. In the instant case, as the letter
attributed to the TIE and distributed by the IAM was a forgery, the
employees were deceived as to the source of the document and their
ability to evaluate the document and its contents was so impaired as
to interfere with the employees' free choice of a bargaining repre-
sentative. While the IAM, in good faith, may not have known that
the letter it circulated was a forgery, it is nonetheless clear that the
employees' loss of ability to evaluate was a direct consequence of the
IAM's action and that the impact on the employees was, in no way,
lessened by the IAM's good or bad faith or its knowledge or lack of
knowledge as to the fraudulent character of the document it dis-
tributed. Moreover, the IAM was put on notice by the UE that the
document was in fact a forgery. Finally, although the UE an hour
before the election attempted to minimize the effect of the fraudulent
letter by circulars attacking the letter as a forgery, we further agree
with the Regional Director that the kind of misrepresentation involved
and the shortage of time remaining after the distribution of the letter
precluded a fair opportunity to counteract the effect of the forgery
before the election. In these circumstances, we shall therefore set
the first election aside and direct that a new one be conducted in Case
No. 6-RC-1852.
12 Merck & Company, Inc., 104 NLRB 891; Allis- Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 117
NLRB 744; The Calidyne Company, 117 NLRB 1026.
13 United Aircraft Corporation , 103 NLRB 102; The Calidyne Company, supra.
14 Also see Timken-Detroit Axle Company, 98 NLRB 790.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC -PRODUCTS, INC.. 831
The Challenges
The UE excepts to the Regional Director's finding that 86 em-
ployees listed on Appendix B attached hereto, laid off because of lack
of work between November 14, 1956, and the election on April 12,
1957, had no reasonable expectancy of recall in the near future, and
to his recommendation that challenges to their ballots be sustained.
Further, the UE requests a hearing on this matter in order adequately
to develop evidence of the Employer's business conditions and expec-
tations. The IUE and the IAM agree with the UE that these laid-off
employees should be eligible to vote because they retain their seniority
rights for a period of 18 months from the day of layoff. The Em-
ployer contends that they are ineligible.
The Employer submitted to the Regional Director data showing
that there had been a steady decline of total employment at the plant
in the last 5 years, from 2,079 on March 1, 1952, to 603 on May" 1, 1957.
While the figures submitted contained employees not in the bargain-
ing unit, the Employer asserted that-on March 1, 1952, there were
1,900 in the unit; and by May 1, 1957, there were only 485 in the unit.
In September 1956, there were approximately 721 employees in the
unit but by the time of the election, there were only 501'in the unit,
excluding those laid off. 'Only two of the laid-off employees in the
unit have been recalled since November 1956.15 The Employer assert-
ed that, at the time of the election, it was clear that on the basis of the
Employer's forecast of future sales, and because of improved manu-
facturing techniques, it was reasonably certain that the challenged
laid-off employees would not be recalled in the near future and prob-
ably would never be recalled. In this connection, the Employer
pointed out that additional employees have been laid off since the
election.
The labor organizations involved have submitted no evidence to
counteract the Employer's evidence concerning the unlikelihood of
recall of these employees in the near future. Rather, they rely exclu-
sively on the contractual provision in the IAM contract that such
laid-off employees maintain their seniority for 18 months from the
time of layoff. We agree with the Regional Director that, according
to Board precedent, the retention of seniority status, is not deter-
minative of eligibility to vote 16 but rather the test is whether there
exists a reasonable expectancy of employment in the near future. As
the record as a whole establishes adequately that there has been a
steady decrease in employment over the last 5 years with little, if any,
recall of laid-off employees, and that there is no reasonable expect-
15 One employee returned from military leave, while the other was recalled to fill an
opening resulting from a resignation.
16 N. A. Woodworth Company, 115 NLRB 1263, 1267.
832 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ancy that the laid-off employees herein involved will be recalled in
the near future, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director,
-that `the 86 individuals listed on Appendix A are,ineligible to vote,
and adopt his recommendation that the challenges to their ballots be
therefore sustained." In these circumstances, we deny the UE's
request for a hearing on this matter.
The Employer and the UE are in agreement that M. L. Fetter,
E. I. Martin, and K. E. Seyler were absent on maternity leave and
that H. M. Confer's absence was excused because of illness at the time
of the election. Apart from their general position that all of the
challenged employees are eligible because of their contractual senior-
ity rights, the IUE and the IAM have taken no specific position with
respect to the challenges discussed herein on an individual basis. The
UE contends that all the employees on maternity leave or absent
because of illness or excused absence are eligible to vote, while the
Employer apparently considers these employees to be ineligible to
vote. The Employer, according to the Regional Director, stated that
an employee placed on excused absence because of illness or maternity
leave was not placed on the recall list until such employee indicated
to the Employer that he or she was available for work, that upon
such notification, the employee's name was added to the recall list in
order of plantwide seniority, and that, as of the time of the election,
none of the employees in question had applied for recall.
The Board has held that employees who are on sick or maternity
leave, who have retained their seniority rights and who have not quit
or been discharged are eligible to vote."' Because it is undisputed that
Fetter, Martin, and Seyler are on maternity leave and that Confer's
absence was excused because of illness, because they had retained their
seniority rights as of the time of the election, and because there is no
evidence that they quit or were discharged, we agree with the Regional
Director that they were eligible to vote and we adopt his recommenda-
tion overruling the challenges to their ballots. However, because of
insufficient evidence with respect to the disputed status of E. G. Barn-
hart, E. M. Duffield, A. A. Erler, J. E. Gettig, P. L. Holter, P. Y.
Shaffer, S. M. Watkins, and D. Shady, we are unable to pass upon the
challenges and their eligibility.19
Accordingly, we shall permit Fetter, Martin, Seyler, and Confer to
vote in the second election in Case No. 6-RC-1852, and we shall permit
Barnhart, Duffield, Erler, Gettig, Holter, Shaffer, Watkins, and Shady
to vote therein under challenge.
17 Shaw-Randall Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 444, 445-6.
Is Foley Manufacturing Company, 115 NLRB 1205.
16 The Regional Director found it unnecessary to rule upon these challenges because
they would not affect the results of the election. However, if the Board directed a hearing,
he believed that these challenges should also be included in such hearing.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS , INC. 833:
[The Board remanded Case No. 6-RC-1851 to the Regional Director
for the Sixth Region, who shall .proceed in accordance with Sections.
102.61 and 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and set aside
the election in Case No . 6-RC-1852 held herein on April 12, 1957.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.];
APPENDIX A
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA
264 Main St.
Mill Hall, Pa.
APRIL 8,1957:.
ORGANIZATIONAL DEPARTMENT
To : JAMES MATLES,
Director of Organization.
PROGRESS OF UE CAMPAIGN, MILL HALL, PENNA.
DEAR JIM : Sorry I wasn't able to get a Report into you last wk, but-.
we've been rushed very much lately. As you requested , I check in xx:
on that plant down in Altoona , and I think we might be able to move
on it after we get out of MillHall and Emporium . Ethel has a few
leads on it and she will be able to help us break ice there.
I finished up negotiations at our Service Shop where Riskin left off..
We got 4 to 80 in a Package deal and I think the people are satisfied'.
for a while . I'll not go into that now because I'm sure your main in-
terest is how we are doing here in Mill Hall. (I 'll send in the facts:
for a story in the UE News , plus some pictures.)
We have made some progress in the past 10 days and I think we got.
a chance of getting into a runoff. However I am not making any pre-
dictions for you because I've never run into as dumb a bunch of people
as work in this plant . They simply are backward and don't give a.
damn about bettering themselves with UE and our program.
I am attaching a copy of that leaflet your suggested we get out on.
the MEN SUPPORTING UE. I hope you appreciate the great:
lengths we had to go to to get those names, some at great personal
sacrifice to myself and Sylvia. Of course , since we got some of the-
names, several of those men have made it clear in the shop that they
aren't supporting us. That's just one of the things I.mean about the,
people here.
476321-58-vol. 119-54
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
But we will keep plugging and intend to hold onto Mill Hall. Both
Sylvia and Bob Kirkwood are working hardxxx and doing everything
they can.
Fraternally,
AND LOTS OF LUCK ON YOUR APPEAL !
"Liz"
ELIZABETH OvERBY , Int'l. Representative.
PS: As per your idea on who should be sent in here after the
election, I feel you should send in an altogether new Staff Man, because
we have had to go overboard in making promises to these people, and
could "explain" things better.
APPENDIX B
Ballots Challenged by Company
1. M. J. Allen
2. M. I. Baier
3. M. V. Barzona
4. B. J. Basinger
5. L. C. Beck
6. G. L. Bennett
7. H. C. Bonadio
8. G. L. Bower
9. F. E. Bowes
10. D. M . Bowmaster
11. J. B . Butler
12. V. M. Cashner
13. J. S . Clukey
14. B. E . Coakley
15. E. I. Confer
16. M. A . Conklin
17. T. L. Considine
18. A. A. Cowher
19. E. J. Cox
20. E. R. Day
21. V. M. Delaney
22. It. M . DeWitt
23. S. H. Dietz
24. F. P. Duck
25. M. A. Dullen
26. J. M. English
27. L. A. Fisher
28. C. E. Flanigan
29. M. C. Folk
30. M. M . Foringer
31. F. M. Frazier
32. I. A. Gephart
33. G. E. Grieb
34. E. L. Grieco
35. H. It. Grieco
36. B. C. Guerriero
37. M. G. Gummo
38. J. M. Haines
39. I. E. Haugh
40. S. L. Heitman
41. H. B. Heverly
42. N. E. Hilliard
43. B. J. Hinds
44. S. E. Irvin
45. M. A. Johnson
46. L. B. Knarr
47. D. M. Koch
48. It. S. Lapp
49. D. E. Laubscher
50. M. E. Laubscher
51. M. M. Leupold
52. T. R. Livingston
53. P. H. Lomax
54. J. V. McCloskey
55. E. M. McKivison
56. J. C. Magent
57. A. B. Manno
58. It. A. Mayes
59. E. W. Miller
60. H. S. Miller
STAR BAKING COMPANY
61. D. M. Morrison
62.. S. J. Mowery
63. K. I. Peasley
64. A. M. Peck
65. B. P. Peter
66. L. M. Pizzuto
67. H. E. Powers
68. M. M. Probst
69. E. F. Rossman
70. A. E. Royer
71. N. C. Ruggiers
72. R. H. Russell
73. M. H. Ryan
74. D. M. Schaffer
75. L. V. Shady
76. M. G. Shivery
77. R. E. Simcox
78. R. A. Smith
79. N. J. Spotts
80. S. E. Stover
81. I. B. Thomas
82. T. P. Tressler
83. G. M. Walters
84. H. L. Welshans
85. G. E. Willits
86. L. B. Young
835
Star Baking Company and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local No. 146,1 Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-1289. December 13,
1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on June 13,
1957,2 an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 11, 1957,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a
tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 34 eligible voters,
14 cast votes for, and 14 cast votes against, the Petitioner. There
were no challenged ballots.
On July 15, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
of the election. On August 28, 1957, the Regional Director issued
his report on objections in which he recommended that the election
be set aside. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
The Petitioner objected to the election on the ground that, in mail-
ing ballots to 14 employees, the Regional Director allowed insufficient
time for returning such ballots.
The Regional Director found no merit in this objection and recom-
mended that it be overruled. As no exception has been taken thereto,
we shall -adopt this recommendation and overrule the Petitioner's
objection to the election.
1 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this union is hereby
amended.
2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
119 NLRB No. 111.