United States Gypsum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1322 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES GYPsuNI COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL `YORKERS, LOCAL 278, CIO,-
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-3-R-3541.-Decided September 10, 1946
Mr. Jack T. Lask, of East Chicago, Ind., for the Employer.
Mr. Howard M. Jones, of Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Martin E. Rendelman, of counsel to the Board..
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on
May 22, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of
the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purpose
of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that of approximately 8 eligible voters 4:
valid votes were cast, all of which were for the Petitioner. There-
after, a hearing was held on June 24, 1946, at Chicago, Illinois, before
Leon A. Rosell, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS .OF THE EMPLOYER I
United States Gypsum Company, an Illiiiois corporation with its
main office in Chicago, Illinois, operates plants and warehouses located
throughout the United States. At its plant at East Chicago, Indiana,
the only establishment involved in this proceeding, the Employer
manufactures and sells-gypsum products and'asbestos cement siding.
The principal raw materials used at this plant by the Employer are
gypsum rock,-cement and asbestos, of which it purchased more than
$100,000 worth in 1945; 75 percent of this material was shipped to the
70 N. L. R. B., No. 131.
1322 _
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 1323
Employer from points outside the State of Indiana . During 1945
sales of the East Chicago plant were valued in excess of $100,000, of
which more than 50 percent was shipped by the Employer to points
outside the State of Indiana. ,
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and ('l) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree and we find that all testers at the Employer's
plant in East Chicago, Indiana, excluding all supervisory employees
with authority to hire,, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section^9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRISENTATIVES
The Employer objects to the election conducted herein, asserting
that because notices of the election were posted in the plant 1 day before
the election was held, "the majority of the people involved did not
have time to think the matter out and decide whether or not they
wanted to vote, or if they did vote how they were going to.vote prior
to the time of election."
The Petitioner filed its petition on April 8, 1946. A prehearing
election was thereafter scheduled by the Regional Office for May 9.
Because of a strike in the local industry and a consequent power short-
age, the Employer was compelled to shut down its East Chicago plant
for the period from May 5 to May 12. By consent of the parties
the election was postponed to a date in the near future which was
to be determined. Notices of election were thereafter mailed by the
Regional Office to the parties on May 16, setting May 21 as the date
of the election, but for reasons unknown the notices were not received
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Employer until the morning of May 20. Upon receipt of the
notices the Employer's personnel manager telephoned to the Regional
Office, but was unable to reach the Field Examiner in charge of this
proceeding. He thereupon talked with the Regional Director and was
instructed to post the notices and be prepared to have the election
conducted as scheduled. Nevertheless, without posting the notices,
the personnel manager waited until he communicated, with the Field
Examiner that night. The Field Examiner suggested that the notices
be posted the following morning (May 21) and that the date of the
election in the notices be changed to May 22. The personnel manager
consented to this arrangement, changed the date of the election in
the notices to May 22, and posted the notices throughout the plant
on the morning of May 21. The election took place on May 22, with
the result, as indicated above, that of the 4 valid votes cast all were
for the Petitioner.
On the foregoing facts we find the Employer's objection' to the
election to be without merit. More than a month before the election
was conducted the Petitioner instituted this proceeding. Originally
scheduled for May 9, the election was postponed with the consent of,
the parties, and the election was not held'until May 22. From these
circumstances, we find that the employees in this small' appropriate
unit must have known that an-election was to be conducted long before
it was actually held. We are satisfied, therefore, that they had suffi-
cient time to decide whether or not to cast a ballot and whether or
not to vote for the Petitioner.'
The results of the election held prior to the hearing show that the
Petitioner received a majority of the votes cast and we shall therefore
certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit: -
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board-by Section 9 c) -of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9, and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3., as amended, -
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Gas, Coke and Chemical Work-
ers, Local 278, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority
of all testers in the employ of United States Gypsum Company at its
East Chicago, Indiana, plant, excluding all supervisory employees
1 No specific contention is made by the Employer that employees were disfranchised
because they did not receive adequate notice of the date the election was to be held, nor
could such a contention be validly advanced . Not only were notices of election posted in
prominent places throughout the plant for a full day before the election , so that employees
in the unit on all three shifts were able to observe the notices , but representatives of the
Petitioner informed at least seven of these eight or nine employees personally when the
election was to be held.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 1325
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and that pursuantto Section 9 (c) of the Act, the said organi-
zation is the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,'
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.