Wells Aluminum Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 1010 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

:1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wells Aluminum Corporation and International Union , United
Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement . Workers
of America (UAW-AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-
5920. September 23, 1958
DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
On April 11, 1958, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region among the employees in the stipulated appropriate unit. Fol-
lowing the election the Regional Director served on the parties a tally
of ballots which shows that of approximately 96 eligible voters, 93
cast ballots, of which 29 were for, and 29 were against, the Petitioner,
and 35 were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re-
sults of the election, the Regional Director investigated them and
on June 26, 1958, issued a report on challenged ballots in which he
recommended that 14 challenges be sustained and 21 be overruled.
The Employer filed timely exceptions to the report.
The Board 1 has considered the stipulation of the parties, the Re-
gional Director's report, the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the
entire record in this case and hereby makes the following findings :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. _
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 employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer, as stipulated by the
parties, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
North Liberty, Indiana, plant, excluding office clerical employees, con-
fidential employees, superintendents, foremen, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The ballots of 25 employees, who were in layoff status, were chal-
lenged by the Board agent because their names did not appear on the
eligibility list. The Petitioner challenged the ballots of 10 individ-
uals on the ground that they are supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.
1 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 [ Members Rodgers, Bean,
and Fanning].
121 NLRB No. 127.
WELLS ALUMINUM CORPORATION 1011
In his report, the Regional Director recommended that the chal-
lenges to the ballots' of Jack Fawley, William Kemmerer, Marion
Correll, Mildred Rocker, Vivian Johnson, Helen- Leona O'Connor,
Robert Plotz, Velma Sharles, and Inez Watson be sustained and that
the challenges to the ballots of Roberta Howard, Dale Knepp, and
Ray Powers be overruled and their votes counted. As no exceptions
to these recommendations have been filed, we hereby adopt them and
shall direct that the ballots of Roberta Howard, Dale Knepp, and
Ray Powers be opened and counted.
The issues raised by the Employer 's exceptions concern the remain-
ing 23 challenged ballots of which 18 were cast by laid-off employees
-and 5 by alleged supervisors . The Regional Director 's report recom-
mends that the challenges to the ballots of the 18 laid-off employees
be overruled and that the challenges to the ballots of the 5 alleged
supervisors be sustained.
With respect to the 18 laid-off employees, the Employer contends
that none had any reasonable expectancy of reemployment as of March
22, 1958, and April 11, 1958, the eligibility and election dates, respec-
tively, and were thus ineligible to vote.
The Regional Director's investigation discloses that the Employer
made substantial layoffs of employees for varying periods between
October 1957 and March 1958 due to a drastic decline in business.
The first layoffs, in October, affected the Employer's Kelco and assem-
bly divisions. The second series of layoffs occurred in November 1957
and affected the aluminum extrusion and foundry divisions. The
night shift in these latter divisions was eliminated on November 27
as a result of these layoffs. However, on January 13 the night shift
resumed and all the laid-off foundry and extrusion divisions employees
were recalled. The 18 employees whose ballots were challenged were
part of a group of 30 employees who were laid off in February and
March. The majority were from the extrusion division. The re-
mainder were from the assembly and foundry divisions. Of this
group, 12, who were recalled to their former jobs between the eligi-
bility and election dates, voted without challenge. The remaining 18,
who voted subject to challenge, were recalled within 2 months after
the election to substantially the same jobs they had held prior to
their layoff.
Looking to the circumstances of the decline in the Employer's busi-
ness , the recall on January 13 of the foundry and extrusion division
employees who had been laid off in November, the recall, after the eligi-
bility date, but prior to the election date, of 12 of 30 employees who
had been laid off in February and March, and the fact that these
.12 were permitted to cast ballots without challenge, we find that as
of the eligibility and election dates there was a reasonable expectancy
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that these 18 laid-off employees would be recalled in the near future.?
We therefore find that these employees were temporarily laid off as
of the eligibility and election dates and thus were eligible to, vote.
Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and
hereby overrule the challenges to the ballots of the 18 laid-off em-
ployees and shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted.
The Regional Director's report and the Employer's exceptions
thereto raise substantial and material issues of fact with respect to
the supervisory status of Annett Arnsberger, Charles Hensley, Jr.,
Carron Mangus, Dewey Mathews, and Anthony Wesolowski, whose
ballots have been challenged on that ground. These issues can best
be resolved by a hearing. Accordingly, in the event that the ballots
of the 21 voters whose ballots are to be opened and counted are
not determinative of the election, we shall order a hearing on the issues
raised in connection with the remaining 5 challenged ballots.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region shall, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board's Rules
and Regulations and within ten (10) days from the date of this de-
cision, open and count the ballots of the employees listed in Appendix
A, the challenges to which have been overruled herein, and shall serve
upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count
of said ballots. If the tally discloses that a majority of the votes
have been cast in favor of the Petitioner, and it appears that the re-
maining unresolved challenges cannot affect the results of the election,
the Regional Director shall issue a certification of representatives.
If the tally discloses that a majority of the votes have been cast against
the Petitioner and it appears that the remaining unresolved challenges
cannot affect the results of the election, the Regional Director shall
issue a certification of results of election. If, however, it appears
that the remaining unresolved challenges can affect the results of the
election, the Regional Director is directed to proceed to hearing in
accordance with the following order.]
[The Board ordered that in the event the revised tally of ballots indi-
cates that the results of the election are not determinative, the instant
case is referred to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region for
the purpose of arranging a hearing before a hearing officer to resolve
the issues raised by the challenges to the ballots of Annett Arnsberger,
Charles Hensley, Jr., Carron Mangus, Dewey Mathews, and Anthony
Wesolowski.]
[The Board further ordered that the hearing officer designated for
the purpose of conducting such hearing shall serve upon the parties
i The Barr Rubber Products Company, , 118 NLRB 1428 ; Aroostook Federation of
Farmers, Inc., 117 NLRB 31 ; Tube Di8tributor8 Co., Inc ., 112 NLRB 296; at. Shaw-
Randall Company, Inc., 116 NLRB' 444.
LOCAL NO. 27, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1013
a report containing resolutions of credibility of witnesses , findings of
fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the
challenged ballots.]
1. Dean Bennett
2. Rodney Correll
3. Claude Cripe
4. James Hiatt
5. Leotta Joachim
6. Robert Loucks
7. DuWayne Neidlinger
8. Helen O'Connor
9. Opal Porter
10. Wayne Schrader
11. John A. Sheneman
APPENDIX A
12. George Sheneman
13. Glen Shupert
14. William E. Snyder
15. Darrell Steele
16. Leonard Steele
17. Bert Swanson
18. William Zlatos
19. Roberta Howard
20. Dale Knepp
21. Ray Powers
Local No. 27, International Typographical Union and Inter=
national Typographical Union and Heiter-Starke Printing Co.
Inc., Gill Printing & Stationery Company, Inc., Powers Com-
pany, Inc., Delchamps Printing Company, and Southern Litho-
graphing Company, Incorporated .' Case No. 15-CD-8. Sep-
tember 24, 1958
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph 4 (d) of Sec-
tion 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen. . . ."
On February 7, 1958, S. O. Starke, Jr., as chairman of an Associa-
tion of employers engaged in the business of commercial printing at
Mobile, Alabama, composed of Heiter-Starke Printing Co., Inc., Gill
Printing & Stationery Company, Inc., Powers Company, Inc., Del-
champs Printing Company, and Southern Lithographing Company,
Incorporated, herein respectively called Heiter-Starke, Gill, Powers,
Delchamps, and Southern, filed with the Regional Director for the
Fifteenth Region a charge alleging that Local No. 27, International
Typographical Union, herein called Local No. 27, and International
Typographical Union, herein called International, had engaged in
and were engaging in certain activities proscribed by Section 8 (b)
(4) (D) of the Act. It was charged in substance that Local No. 27
and International have induced and encouraged employees of the
121 NLRB No. 131.