W. R. Grace & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 786 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Davison Chemical Company, Division of W. R . Grace & Co. and
International Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 11-RC-787. March 13,1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
November 18, 1955,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on
December 15, 1955, under the supervision and direction of the Re-
gional Director for the Eleventh Region, among the employees of
the Employer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Follow-
ing the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The
tally shows that of approximately 87 eligible voters, 81 cast ballots,
39 for the Petitioner, 40 for the Intervenor, 1 against the participat-
ing labor organizations, and 1 ballot was challenged. There were
no objections to the conduct of the election.
Since the Intervenor challenged the ballot of James L. Johnson,
contending that he was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
and since this challenge was sufficient to affect the results of the elec
tion, the Regional Director conducted an investigation into the mat-
ter. During this investigation, both the Employer and Intervenor
moved the Board to order a second election without first resolving
the challenged ballot issue. In a report on challenges, dated Janu-
ary 30, 1956, and duly served upon the parties, the Regional Di-
rector recommended that (1) the challenge to Johnson's ballot be
overruled, as he was not a supervisor at the time of the election;
(2) his vote be opened and counted; and (3) the Intervenor's and
Employer's motions be denied.
The Employer has filed exceptions to the recommendations for
opening and counting Johnson's ballot and for denying its motion,
not because Johnson was ineligible to vote but because to count his
ballot now would destroy its secrecy. We find no merit in this con-
tention. It is true that Johnson's vote will be publicly known when
his ballot is opened and counted, but this is an unavoidable result
of the challenge procedure. Consequently, we believe that the poli-
' Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. At the hearing, Local
No. 863 , International Union of Mine , Mill and Smelter Workers, Independent , was per-
mitted to intervene.
115 NLRB No. 123.
SOUTHERN BLEACHERY AND PRINT WORKS, INC. 787
cies of the Act will best be effectuated by counting the ballots of all
eligible voters in determining the choice of a bargaining represent-
ative, even if, as a result of the challenge procedure, the. choice of one
or more of the eligible voters becomes public knowledge 2
As there have been no exceptions filed to the merits of the Regional
Director's recommendation for overruling the challenge, we hereby
adopt it, as well as his other recommendations. We shall direct that
Johnson's ballot be opened and counted.'
[The.Board directed that the Regional Director for the Eleventh
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction
open -and count the ballot of James L. Johnson, and serve upon the
parties a supplemental tally of ballots.]
' American Partition Corporation, 100 NLRB 1.
s Since Johnson's vote may be determinative of the election, we deny the Intervenor's
request of February 27, 1956, for a new election among the employees presently on the
payroll.
Southern Bleachery and Print Works, Inc. and Machine Printers
Beneficial Association of the United States, Petitioner . Case No.
11-RC-745. March 13,1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On July 26, 1955, the Board issued a Decision and Order dismiss-
ing the petition filed in the above-entitled case.' Thereafter, on.
August 8, the Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration and oral
argument, and on August 15, the Employer filed a statement in oppo-
sition thereto. On September 27, 1955, the Board heard oral argu-
ment in which the Petitioner and the Employer participated.
Upon reconsideration of this case, the oral argument by the Peti-
tioner and the Employer, and the entire record herein, we make the
following findings : <
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The' Petitioner seeks a unit designated generally as machine
printers, including journeymen and apprentices. The Employer con-
tends that the machine printers are supervisors, but does not other-
wise contest the appropriateness of the unit.
There are approximately 40 printers who work at 2 locations, the
printroom in the printworks and the shirting print in the bleachery.
About 30 of them are in the printroom and work on a 3-shift opera--
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
115 NLRB No. 118.