Westingthouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1625 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

WESTINGHOUSE . ELECTRIC CORPORATION 162
As ; we have sustained the challenges to the ballots of Helzer, . and
Warfield, the ballot of Hornberger cannot affect the results-of the
election . We, therefore, find it unnecessary to consider the challenge
to Hornberger's ballot. .
As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority
of the valid votes cast , we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Retail Clerks International Association, Local
1682, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees of Consolidated Retail Stores, Inc., d/b/a Bon
Marche, Grand Rapids, Michigan, department store, in the unit here'
tofore found appropriate.]
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Local 68, International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case-No.
22-EC-1 (formerly 2-RC-8403). October 15, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES ,
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by flee
Board herein. on March 1, 1957,1. an election by secret ballot was. held
on March 29, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Second Region, among the employees in. the
appropriate unit. Upon completion of the election, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that all five of the,
eligible voters voted for the Petitioner, and none for the Intervenor,
Local 420, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO.
On April 2, 1957, the Intervenor filed timely objections to conduct
allegedly affecting the results of the election.2 In accordance with
the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation, and, on May 29, 1957, issued and duly served- upon
the parties his report on objections. In this report, the Regional.Di-
1 117 NLRB 520
*On May 16 , 1957, the Petitioner requested permission to withdraw its petition for
certification of representatives filed herein. By order denying request dated August 5,
"1957, the Board denied this request as untimely filed.
On August 27, 1957, the Intervenor filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that
the Board set aside this order , because 4 of the 5 employees signed checkoff authorization
cards for the Intervenor in July 1957 , subsequent to the withdrawal request . The Board
-pas held that repudiation by employees of an election , made shortly thereafter,may, not
overturn and voi& the election results , because conclusive effect must be given ,giv to, the
'.ieaults of a Board=conducted election, for --a reasonable period . Accordingly , the motion to
hereby. denied . Boerens Motor company, 106 NLRB 1388, 1390.
118 NLRB No. 224 . ^,:
;^• ^,., ,
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rector found that the Intervenor's objections were without merit, and
recommended that they be overruled and the Petitioner certified as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. There-
after, on June 10, 19,57, the Intervenor timely filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report with respect to objections 1, 2, and 3, but
not to objection 4, and to his recommendation that the Petitioner be
certified.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Jenkins].
The Intervenors initial objection is that the observer for the
Employer at the election, Richard D. Atherley, is a supervisor and
should not have been permitted to act in that capacity. No objection
was made to his participation in the election until after the election.
According to the Regional Director, Atherley is classified as an
"Industrial Relations Assistant." He is mainly concerned with wage
administration and job evaluation programs. He makes effective
recommendations as to jobs and pay rates, but not as to individual
employees. He participateswith his supervisor in meetings or nego-
tiations with employee representatives, but only as an adviser on
questions concerning wage administration or job evaluation. He
does not settle gievances, speak for the Employer in industrial rela-
tions matters, or authorize union stewards to leave their places of work
to participate in grievance matters. Atherley has the working con-
ditions and fringe benefits of a nonsupervisory, salaried employee.
He is assisted by a personnel clerk who performs clerical work for
him and other office employees, but has no authority with respect to
the status of this clerk. The Regional -Director concluded that Mr.
Atherley was not a supervisor and recommended overruling this
objection.
In its exceptions, the Intervenor alleges that it has resolved a
number of job evaluation grievances with Atherley and that without
his signature on "time report" cards the Intervenor's stewards and
officers could not have participated in grievance meetings. We find
these allegations, even if proved, not sufficient to establish Atherley
as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, the In-
tervenor did not object to Atherley's serving as an observer until after
the election. Accordingly, we find the Intervenor's objection 1 to be
without merit and hereby overrule it.'
Concerning objection 2, the Intervenor alleged that the official
ballots attached to the notice of election were improperly marked by
•Northrop Aircraft, Inc., 106 NLRB 23, 25.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1627
the insertion of an "X" in the box appearing under the Petitioner's
name. As the Intervenor failed to submit the alleged altered notice
or any evidence as to who marked it improperly, the Regional Di-
rector found no merit in this objection. In its exceptions the Inter-
venor stated that it was submitting therewith photostatic copies of
the original notices of election posted on March 29, 1957, showing im-
proper markings. However, no such documents were in fact submitted
to the Board. Accordingly, as there is no evidence supporting the
Intervenor's objection 2, we hereby overrule it .4
In its objection 3, the Intervenor contended that it had properly
challenged the eligibility of the voters to participate in the election,
but that the Board's agent had refused to accept these challenges and
failed to impound the ballots. The Regional Director found that the
attempted challenge was a "mass challenge" of each and every voter
and as such not a proper challenge under Board precedent.' He also
found that the ground assigned for the challenge, i. e., that the Peti-
tioner was not qualified to represent the employees because of the
"no-raiding" provisions of the AFL-CIO constitution, was a matter
based on internal union considerations and not pertinent.
In its exceptions the Intervenor alleged that its observer had at-
tempted to challenge each and every voter individually, but that
the Board's agent had refused to accept this challenge or to give him
an opportunity to state the reason or basis for the challenges. It also.
contends that irrespective of whether the Board will consider a chal-
lenge based on the "no-raiding" provisions of the AFL-CIO con-
stitution, the Petitioner has, pursuant to these provisions, moved to
withdraw its petition, and that this fact, rather than the underlying
reasons therefor, are determinative herein.
We agree with the Regional Director that the Intervenor's at-
tempted challenges were in the nature of a "mass challenge" regardless
of whether they were made individually, or simultaneously for all
voters, There can be no doubt that the voters were challenged as a
group and for the same reason. Moreover, we have denied the Pe-
titioner's motion to withdraw the petition.6 Accordingly, we find
no merit in objection 3 and hereby overrule it.
As we have overruled the Intervenor's objections to the conduct of
the election and as the tally of ballots shows that a majority of the
ballots were cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify that labor organi-
S Rheem Manufacturing Company, 114 NLRB 404, 406.
6 William R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., 94 NLRB 1151, footnote 6.
6 See footnote 2.
7 No exception was taken to, the Regional Director 's recommendation that objection 4
be overruled . Accordingly, we adopt this recommendation pro forma.
1628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nation as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Local 68, International Union of Operating
Engineers , AFL-CIO, as the designated collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
Belleville , New Jersey , in the appropriate unit.] 8
8 In the event that the Petitioner should . hereafter fail to act as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in accordance with Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Board will
entertain a motion for revocation of this certification.
O