Victor Comptometer Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 225 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

DES MOINES GLOVE CO., ETC. 225
Des Moines Glove Co., subsidiary of Victor Comptometer Corp.
of America and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen AFL-CIO, Leather Division, Petitioner. Case No.
18-RC-5570. March 2, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted September 24, 1963, by
the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, among the em-
ployees in the unit described below. After the election the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots which shows that of approximately
90 eligible voters, 89 cast ballots, of which 39 were for, and 46 against,
the Petitioner, 2 were challenged, and 2 were void.' The challenged
ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting
the election results.
Pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Di-
rector conducted an investigation and, on November 14, 1963, issued
and duly served upon the parties his report on objections in which
he recommended that objection No. 1 be sustained, and that the elec-
tion be set aside and a new one directed. The Employer filed timely
-exceptions to the report. In view of the issues of fact raised by the
Employer's exceptions, the Regional Director informed the parties
and the Board that he would reconsider his report and, on Decem-
ber 30, 1963, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the
parties his supplemental report on objections in which he reaffirmed
.his recommendation that the election be set aside. The Employer filed
-timely exceptions to the Regional Director's supplemental report.
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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
,.Section 9(c) (1) and and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following em-
ployees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
146 NLRB No. 24.
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer, exclud-
ing office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
5. We have considered the Regional Director's reports and the ex-
ceptions thereto, and hereby adopt the findings and recommendations
of the Regional Director.'
Accordingly, we shall set aside the election and direct that a new
election be held.
[The Board set aside the election conducted herein on September
24, 1963.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
1 In its exceptions to the supplemental report the Employer objects to the Regional
Director's action in treating the exceptions to his first report as a "motion for reconsidera-
tion." The Employer contends that the Board should have passed upon its exceptions to
the first report and ordered a hearing on the factual issues raised. We find no merit in
this contention . The Regional Director In effect decided to supplement his consideration
of objection No. 1 before the Board passed upon his recommendations, and no prejudice
Is shown to have resulted therefrom, as the Employer has had opportunity to file excep-
tions to the supplemental report. The Employer contends that the Regional Director
erred in concluding that, because the Employer had no established plan for periodic or
merit wage increases , the wage adjustments granted to five employees 12 days before the
election were given to influence the results . In support of this contention it alleges that
Freund, the Employer's new plant manager , had announced to employees at the time he
assumed his duties on May 2, 1963 , that a survey of the wage structure would be under-
taken in order to correct any wage inequities , that the employees knew this survey was
in progress, and that by the nature of the survey wage adjustments would not be effectu-
ated according to a regular or periodic plan. However , in our opinion , because of the
flexibility of the survey and the absence of an explanation of why the increases were
granted before instead of after the election , we do not believe that the Employer has
satisfied the burden of showing that the granting of the increases was timed for reasons
other than to influence the election results. See Glosser Bros., Inc., 120 NLRB 965,
966-967.
Detroit Mailers Union No. 4, International Mailers Union and
Detroit Gravure Corporation . Case No. 7-CD-92. March 3,
1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following a
charge filed by Detroit Gravure Corporation, herein called the Em-
ployer, alleging that Detroit Mailers Union No. 4, International
Mailers Union, herein called 'the Mailers, had violated Section
8(b) (4) (D), by threatening, coercing, or restraining the Employer
for purposes of compelling it to assign certain work to employees
represented by the Mailers , rather than to employees represented by
Detroit Paper Handlers' and Plate Handlers' Union No. 10, Inter-
146 NLRB No. 23.