Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 201 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 201
In view of the foregoing, and particularly in view of the fact that
these lubrication duties have been performed by handymen since 1949;
that the handymen have been supervised by the maintenance foreman
who has charge of the mechanics at the Veterans' Shop ; that these
handymen have worked the same hours and shared the same locker area
as the mechanics; and that handymen performing these duties have
been allowed to progress to mechanic apprentice and eventually be-
come mechanics, we conclude that upon the basis of the entire record
the Board certification in 38 NLRB 1346 should include the classifica-
tion "lubrication men." Accordingly, we thereby amend the certifica-
tion to include lubrication men in the unit described in the original
certification.
MEMBERS RODGERS and FANNING took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision Clarifying Certification of Representatives.
Sylvania Electric Products , Inc. and District Lodge 131, Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 18-RC-3653. November 21, 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 Ray C. Jenkins, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made ,it the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 claims to represent certain employees
of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Burlington, Iowa, plant, including cafeteria employees and group
leaders; but excluding executives, monitors and all other supervisors
1 The International Union of Electrical , Radio, and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, was
permitted to intervene in this proceeding.
122 NLRB No. 35.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of higher rank, engineers, technicians, draftsmen, designers, office
and plant clerical employees, watchmen, guards, supervisors, and
professional employees as defined in the Act.
5. The Petitioner and the Employer contend that employees on
"excused absence" and "laid-off for lack of work" lists should not
be permitted to vote. The Intervenor, however, takes the position
that these employees should be eligible to vote.
The Employer is engaged at Burlington in the production of highly
specialized electronic tubes for Government contracts, prime Govern-
ment contractors, and commercial sales. At the time of the hearing,
production was 55 percent of the October 1957 level and the employee
complement was approximately 56 percent of the October 1957 com-
plement. The record indicates that current Government contracts
have been stretched out or are being completed, plant inventories
are building up, and efficiency of operation is increasing. Because
of these factors the future outlook for the plant is a further decrease
in employment.
At the time of the hearing there were 389 employees who have
been laid off for lack of work. These employees are maintained in
order of seniority on a recall list which is posted in the plant. They
retain their seniority on this list for 18 months after layoff and will
be recalled to work in order of their seniority if jobs become avail-
able. In addition to these laid-off employees, there were also at the
time of the hearing, 77 employees on the "excused absence" list. These
employees, usually on maternity medical leave, are not retained on
the payroll, nor are they automatically restored to their duties when
they notify the Employer that they are ready to return to work.
On the contrary, they must produce a medical certificate and, if
satisfactory, they are then placed on the "laid-off for lack of work"
list to be recalled in order of seniority if jobs become available as
are the other laid off employees on the list. The status of the "excused
absence" employees is unlike that of other employees who are on
sick leave and whom the Employer retains on the payroll for periods
up to 6 months and who are immediately restored to their jobs when
they are physically able to return to work. The parties agree that
the latter employees are eligible to vote under the Board's customary
policy.
The Board has established a rule whereby laid-off employees are
permitted to vote if they have a "reasonable expectation" of being
recalled. As the employees on the "laid-off for lack of work" list do
not have such a reasonable expectation of recall they are not eligible.2
With respect to the employees on the "excused absence" list, we find
2 Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 119 NLRB '824.
THE TETRAD CO., INC. 203
that their prospects of recall are no better than those of the employees
on the "laid -off for lack of work" list . Accordingly, the "excused
absence" employees , too, are ineligible to vote.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
$ To the extent that the Board held otherwise in the above -cited case involving another
plant of the Employer, we hereby overrule it.
The Tetrad Co., Inc. and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
2-RC-9371. November 21, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election,' dated
June 10, 1958, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 1,
1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Second Region among the employees in the unit found
appropriate by the Board. At the close of the election, the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that 37 votes were
cast for the Petitioner, 41 votes were cast against the Petitioner, and
13 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. As the challenged ballots were suffi-
cient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, in
accordance with the provisions of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 7, investigated the challenges as well as the objections, and on
October 6, 1958, issued and duly served on the parties his report on
challenged ballots and objections to the election. In his report, he
recommended that one of the objections 2 be sustained, that the elec-
tion be set aside, and that the challenges to 9 of the 13 ballots be
sustained .' Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's findings as to the challenged ballots. The
Employer also filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
finding with respect to the objections.
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 Rodgers and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1 Unpublished.
2 The Regional Director did not deem it necessary to consider the other objections in
view of his recommendation to set the election aside.
3 The Regional Director did not deem it necessary to resolve the four remaining
challenged ballots , because they could not affect the results of the election.
122 NLRB No. 31.