The Babcock & Wilcox Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 2, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 944 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

'944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Babcock & Wilcox Company and International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders Blacksmiths,
Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-
1927. August 2, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
On December 4,1956, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued herein on November 7, 1956,1 the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region conducted an election among the employees in the
appropriate unit. At the close of the election, the Regional Director
served a tally of ballots upon the parties which showed that there were
approximately 419 eligible voters, of whom 417 voted-199 for, and
210 against, the Petitioner, with 7 challenged and 1 void ballot. The
challenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect the results of
the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner timely filed objections to the
election. The Regional Director investigated the objections and on
January 25, 1957, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on
objections to election in which he recommended that certain of the
Petitioner's objections be overruled and that a hearing be held to
determine the validity of other objections. The Employer, but not
the Petitioner, timely filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
On February 26, 1957, the Board issued an order directing a hear-
ing before a Trial Examiner on two issues in accordance with the
recommendations of the Regional Director.
The order instructed the Trial Examiner to prepare and serve upon
the parties a report containing resolutions of credibility of witnesses,
findings of fact, and recommendations as to the disposition of the
issues. The order also stated that, if no exceptions were filed, the
Board would adopt the recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
A hearing was held on March 14, 15, 18, and 19, 1957, before Trial
Examiner A. Bruce Hunt. All parties participated in the hearing.
On June 12, 1957, the Trial Examiner issued and duly served upon the
parties a report and recommendations. Thereafter, the Employer,
but not the Petitioner, filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's report
together with a supporting brief.
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 Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
'116 NLRB 1542.
118 NLRB No. 120.
THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY 945
Examiner 's report, the exceptions , the brief , and the entire record in
the case, and adopts the Trial Examiner 's findings and recommenda-
tions with the modifications indicated hereinafter.2
The Board directed a hearing on the following issues :
1. Whether interviews of employees by supervisors took place under
such circumstances and in such proximity to the election and on such
a scale as to interfere with the employees ' freedom of choice in the
election.
2. Whether leadmen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
The Trial Examiner found that 2 foremen spoke to 3 of the approxi-
mately 400 voters and urged them to vote against the Petitioner, and
that the foremen made neither threats of retaliatory action nor
promises of benefits. He concluded that this, conduct did not con-
stitute interference with the election such as to warrant setting aside
the results thereof. As no exceptions have been filed to this finding of
the Trial Examiner , we adopt it without comment.
The second question posed was whether leadmen are supervisors.
The Trial Examiner found that they were. The Employer has ex-
cepted to this finding . We find it unnecessary to decide this question.
Leadmen were permitted to vote without challenge . There is no ques-
tion of the propriety of their voting. In any event, such an objection
would be in the nature of a post-election challenge and cannot be
considered at this stage of the proceeding? The Board requests that
a determination be made of the alleged supervisory status of leadmen
only because the Petitioner alleged in its objections , and the Regional
Director reported , that one or more leadmen had interrogated em-
ployees and urged them to vote against the Petitioner . Inasmuch as
the Trial Examiner has not found that any leadmen had engaged in
the aforesaid conduct, the status of the leadmen as supervisors is
academic. We therefore do not decide whether the leadmen are
supervisors and do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's findings and
recommendations with respect to them.
In view of the foregoing, we hereby overrule the Petitioner's objec-
tions to the election . A majority of employees has voted against
representation by the Petitioner . Accordingly , we shall certify the
results of the election.
. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Build-
ers Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL -CIO, and that this labor
organization is therefore not the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate.]
2 The Employer has requested oral argument. The request is denied as the record and
the briefs adequately present the issues and the position of the parties.
3 N. L. R . R. v. A. J . Tower Company, 329 U. S. 324.
450553-58-vol. 118-61