The Heekin Can Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1658 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

I ii the Matter of THE HEEKIN CAN COMPANY , EMPLOYER and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-7N5
SECOND' SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
January 26, 1951
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections herein,
issued on April 26, 1950,1 elections by secret ballot were conducted
on May 24, 1950, in two voting groups, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region. Thereafter,
a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The tally showed that of the approximately 39 eligible voters in
voting group 1, the only group herein involved, 38 cast valid ballots,
of which 15 were for the Amalgamated Lithographers of America,
Local No. 8, C. I. 0., 23 were for the Association of Employees of
The Heekin Can Company,2 and there were 10 challenged ballots.
As the number of challenged ballots was sufficient to affect the results
of the elections, the Regional Director, in accordance with the Board's
Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation, and thereafter
issued and duly served upon the parties a Report on Challenged Bal-
lots dated June 21, 1950. With respect to voting group 1, the Regional
Director found that 8 of the 10 challenged ballots were cast by eligible
voters, that the challenges to these ballots should be overruled, and
that these ballots should be opened and counted; with regard to the
2 remaining challenged ballots, cast by Gilbert Chipman and Roy De
Bruler, the Regional Director found that these employees were not
eligible to vote in voting group 1 and recommended that the challenges
to their ballots be sustained. The Lithographers filed exceptions to
the latter finding and recommendation. As no exceptions were filed
to the opening and counting of the afore-mentioned 8 challenged bal-
lots, and as the Board found that these ballots might be determinative
189 NLRB 717.
' Referred to hereinafter as the Lithographers and the Association, respectively.
On May 8 , 1950, the Board granted the Petitioner 's request that its name be withdrawn
from the ballot in this voting group.
92 NLRB No. 248.
1658
THE HEEKIN CAN COMPANY 1659
of the result of the election, the Board overruled the challenges to these
ballots, directed that they be opened and counted, and that the Re-
gional Director thereafter prepare, and cause to be served upon the
parties, a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the count
of said challenged ballots. The revised tally, duly served upon the
parties, showed that 23 ballots were cast for the Lithographers, 23 for
the Association, none for "neither" union, and the 2 challenged ballots
cast by Chipman and De Bruler remained unopened. There were no
void ballots.-
On August 14, 1950, the Board directed the Regional Director to
conduct a supplemental investigation as to the two remaining chal-
lenged ballots. As the Regional Director's Supplemental Report on
Challenged Ballots raised substantial and material issues, the Board
ordered a hearing, which was duly held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on October
10, 1950, before Seymour Goldstein, hearing officer. The hearing offi-
cer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. In accordance with the Board's Order, the hear-
ing officer prepared, and caused to be duly served upon the parties,
a report resolving questions of credibility and containing findings of
fact and recommendations to the Board. In his report, the hearing
officer found that Chipman and De Bruler spent less than 50 percent
of their working time as press helpers, whose ballots the Board directed
be opened and counted in voting group 1, and that their functions were
essentially those of stackers, whom the Board in its initial Decision
herein specifically excluded from this voting group. Accordingly, the
hearing officer recommended that the ballots of Chipman and De
Bruler not be opened.
Thereafter, the Lithographers filed exceptions to the report, alleging
that Chipman and De Bruler were an integral part of the press operat-
ing team, along with the pressmen and press helpers, that they were
thus distinguishable from the other employees classified as stackers,
and that their ballots should therefore be opened and counted in
voting group 1.
During the period in question Chipman and De Bruler spent a sub-
stantial portion of their working time at the front of a press, assisting
,or relieving press helpers, whereas the other stackers worked primarily
at the rear of the press, approximately 75 to 100 feet away. The close
association of Chipman and De- Bruler with the press helpers indicates
a certain community of interest with the employees in voting group 1.
However, Chipman and De Bruler, while at the front end of the press,
were engaged primarily in stacking. Furthermore, the other stackers,
who worked at the rear of the press, also at times assisted the press
helpers. Both Chipman and De Bruler occasionally worked at the
1660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rear of the press. As Chipman and De Bruler were classified as stack-
ers and spent the principal portion of their time doing stacking work,
we find the exceptions of the Lithographers to be without merit. Ac-
cordingly, we hereby adopt the hearing officer's conclusions and recom-
mendations, and sustain the challenges to the ballots of Chipman and
De Bruler.
As neither of the participating labor organizations received a
majority of the. valid votes cast in voting group 1, we shall dismiss
this proceeding insofar as it pertains to employees in this voting
group.3
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that so much of this proceeding as pertains to
the investigation and certification of representatives of all lithographic
processing employees, at the Employer's Cincinnati, Ohio, plant, as.
set forth in the Board's Decision And Order herein,' be, and it hereby is,,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Order..
8 United States Rubber Company , 83 NLRB 378.
4 89 NLRB 717.