United States Gypsum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 551 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 551
Subsequent to certification and up until December 1, 1953, incon-
clusive bargaining negotiations were held between the Carpenters and
the Employer. However, since December 1, 1953, there have been no
bargaining negotiations and to date there has not been a contract
signed for any of the four units. Despite their failure the Carpenters
continued to claim to represent the employees. Recently, another
union, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local 12,330,
which represents the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees, advised the Employer that it represents a majority of the
employees in the machinists and garage mechanics, pipefitters, and
sheetmetal workers units. The Employer thereupon filed the instant
petitions with respect to these employees. An individual employee
has filed a petition requesting a decertification election for the instru-
anent and scale mechanics unit, alleging that the Carpenters is no
longer the bargaining representative of these employees within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
In view of the above facts, we find that questions concerning repre-
sentation exist warranting elections at this time.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute separate
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 2 (1) All instrument and scale
mechanics and their apprentices; (2) all machinists and garage me-
chanics and their apprentices; (3) all pipefitters and their appren-
tices; (4) all sheetmetal workers and their apprentices.
[Text of Direction of Elections 2 omitted from publication.]
2 The unit descriptions appear as ultimately found appropriate in National Aniline Divi-
sion, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, supra . The record shows that the duties of
the employees in the four units involved have not changed since the hearing in the latter
case we find without merit the Employer 's contention that these unit determinations
are no longer valid because of the recent Board decisions dealing with craft severance.
This case does not involve issues of craft severance , the units in question having pre-
viously been established as separate appropriate units.
2 Although the Carpenters ' International was certified by the Board in Case No.
3-RC-1029, Local 2034 subsequently came into being in the Employer's plant . The Local
appeared at the hearing and claims to represent the employees involved.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY a'nd UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEM-
ICAL WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-2282. Febru-
ary 8, 1955
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Certification of
Representatives
On September 17, 1954, the Board issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in a production and maintenance unit found appropriate
by the Board.' The Board did not pass upon the unit placement of
2 109 NLRB 1402.
111 NLRB No. 86.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
board machine men and board cascade tenders, but provided for them
to vote subject to challenge. On September 27, 1954, the Employer-
filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the Board to exclude
three categories from the bargaining unit, or in the alternative, to re-
open the hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence on which to,
base a determination of the status of the disputed categories. On Oc-
tober 12, 1954, the Board granted the motion to the extent of specifi-
cally excluding the testers, one of the disputed categories, from the
unit, but denied the motion to exclude board machine men and board
cascade tenders, alleged supervisory categories, and permitted these
two categories to vote challenged ballots.
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election and the subse-
quent Orders, an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 14,
1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Eighteenth Region among the employees of the Employer. Upon
completion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was furnished the par-
ties. The tally reveals that of approximately 343 eligible voters, 336
cast ballots : 262 were cast for the Petitioner, 62 against the Petitioner,
2 ballots were void, and 10 ballots were challenged.
On October 19, 1954, the Employer filed objections to the conduct
of the election, and to conduct affecting the results of the election,,
where it alleged :
1. The voting unit set forth in the Notice of Election purported
to include the alleged supervisory categories, the board machine
men and the board cascade tenders, and unduly influenced the
vote of the employees.
2. The election was held without the hearing contemplated by
Section 9 (c) of the Act and before a Board determination of a
complete appropriate unit inasmuch as the Board did not deter-
mine the status of board machine men and board cascade tenders.
3. A false and scandalous rumor was circulated by a key or-
ganizer of the Petitioner, Vogel, that he would be fired if the
Union lost the election; the Employer did not hear of the rumor
until the day of the election, too late to act to counteract or neu-
tralize the effect on the employees, and, consequently, the election
was conducted in a climate of outrage and suspicion.
Thereafter, on November 22, 1954, following an investigation, the
Regional Director issued his report on objections and recommenda-
tion for certification of representatives. The Regional Director found
that the Board had in effect passed upon the first two objections of
the Employer when it considered the Employer's motion for recon-
sideration, and that the rumor mentioned in the third objection was
not,•calculated to have a coercive effect upon employees in the bargain-
ing unit and could have had no substantial effect upon the results of
the election. The Regional Director found that the objections did not
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 553
raise substantial or material issues with respect to the election or con-
duct affecting the results of the election and recommended that they
be overruled. The Regional Director further found that the status of
categories which were challenged could best be determined after a
hearing, but that the certification should not be delayed inasmuch as
the challenges did not affect the results of the election.
We shall accept the Regional Director's recommendation, and issue
a certification.
The Employer did not file formal exceptions to the Regional Direc-
tor's report, but on December 1, 1954, the Employer filed a motion for
further hearing where it stated that it did not agree with the Regional
Director's report with respect to its objections Nos. 1 and 2. It chal-
lenged the procedure of holding an election in an "incomplete bargain-
ing unit" and certifying such a unit prior to a determination of al-
leged supervisory categories.
We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the election was
improper, and, inasmuch as the Petitioner has received a majority of
the votes cast in the election and the challenged ballots cannot affect
the results of the election, we shall issue a certification to the Peti-
tioner.
However, we shall grant the Employer's motion to order a further
hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence with respect to the al-
leged supervisory status of the board machine men and the board cas-
cade tenders for the purpose of determining whether those classifica-
tions should be included in the bargaining unit heretofore found ap-
propriate. Both classifications were permitted to vote subject to chal-
lenge in our recent Direction of Election.
[The Board remanded the case to the Regional Director for the pur-
pose of receiving evidence of the duties and responsibilities of the
board machine men and the board cascade tenders.]
[The Board certified United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers, CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees of United States Gypsum Company at Fort Dodge, Iowa, in the
unit found by the Board to be appropriate.]
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L ., PETITIONER. Ci a. e NO.
5-RC,-1473. Febrruary9,1955
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 Henry L. Segal, hearing
111 NLRB No. 92.