Williams Furnace Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

WILLIAMS FURNACE CO. 861
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation of the Committee (a
collective -bargaining representative of our employees ) or any other collective-
bargaining representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the right to
self-organization , to form, join, or assist Building Service Employees Interna-
tional Union , Local No. 105, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of their
own choosing.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely dises-
tablish , the Committee or any successor thereto, as a representative of any of our
employees for the purpose of dealing with respect to grievances , wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment , or any other conditions of employment.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of Building Service
Employees International Union, Local No. 105, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
FLOORS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance.with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 609 Railway
Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Street, Denver, Colorado, Telephone No.
297-3551.
Williams Furnace Co. and Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association , Local Union 170, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
21-RC-9806. May 10, 1966
DECISION ,AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 17, 1965,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
Region 21. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
54 eligible voters, 49 cast ballots, of which 24 were for the Petitioner,
22 were against the Petitioner, and 3 were challenged. The three
challenges were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct, affecting
the election.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and challenges
and, on December 30, 1965, issued his report thereon, recommending
that the objections be overruled, that the challenge to the ballot cast
by employee Carl Bond be sustained, and that the challenges to the
ballots of employees Gary Delaware and William Lampe be over-
ruled. Inasmuch as these two remaining ballots were sufficient in
number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director
directed that they be opened and counted to determine the result of
the election. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's Report and supporting briefs.
158 NLRB No. 82.
S62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
-4, In accord with the stipulation of the parties, the following
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining : All production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at 1490 Firestone Boulevard, Buena Park, California,
including shipping, receiving, and Warehousing employees, stock
clerks, material handlers, truckdrivers, inspectors, and servicemen,
(including outside servicemen and working leatlmen) ; but excluding
all office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the Regional Director's findings and recommendations.'
1 In our opinion,, the Employer's exceptions and brief raise no substantial and material
issues with respect to these findings and recommendations which would warrant our
reversal or modification of them
We agree with the Regional Director that the leaflet distributed by the Petitioner does
not warrant the inference of material misrepresentation which the Employer would at-
tribute to it. The leaflet's legend might perhaps be subject to various interpretations
But since the Employer had raised the question of the low level of union employees' in-
centive pay, the leaflet distributed by Petitioner in reply cannot be fairly interpreted as
asserting or implying that the incentive earnings were typical of those ordinarily earned
by union employees of Day/Night. Accordingly, we find that its distribution during the
critical period did not interfere with the election . Ilollywood Ceramics Company, Inc,
140 NLRB 221, 224.
We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that experimental mechanic Bond per-
forms tasks so similar to those production employees that he should be included in the pro-
duction unit . Such sporadic "production" work as can be attributed to him relates to
essential technical ( if minor ) correction of new production parts, and usually is performed
in the test laboratory . In our opinion this fact merely emphasizes the correctness of the
Regional Director 's determination that Bond should be excluded from the production unit,
as an employee whose principal duties and interests are more closely allied with test
laboratory personnel.
We find no merit in the Petitioner 's contention that William Kampe's incidental office
duties require his exclusion from the production unit His principal duties are the
maintenance of proper time and production records , and at least d0 percent of his time
is spent in plant clerical functions.
In the absence of exceptions we adopt pro forma the Regional Director 's recommenda-
tion that the challenge to Delaware's ballot be overruled.
LAKE BUTLER APPAREL COMPANY, ETC. 863
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for Region 21 shall,
within 10 clays from the date of this Direction, open and count these
ballots.]
Lake Butler Apparel Company, Norman Stephenson, Union
County Development Authority, Robert A. Driggers, Dana L.
Duke, Clyde U. Crews, M. G. Langford , S. A. Bryan, C. L.
Brown, A. E. Howard, Fred L. Thomas, Wilford Croft, S. M.
Brown, and Hal Y. Maines and Amalgamated Clothing Work-
ers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 12-CA-2967. May 13,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 1, 1965, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
Within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent, General Counsel, and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and support-
ing briefs. The Charging Party also filed a brief in support of the
Trial Examiner's Decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings,i conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with
the following modifications.
The Trial Examiner found, inter alia, that on and after April 25,
1964, Respondent Company has refused to bargain collectively in
good faith in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. We agree, but
we would date Respondent Company's refusal to bargain from
April 19, 1964, when it first acquired knowledge of the Union's
demand at which time the Union had a majority of 37 in a unit of
73 employees.
i We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Union represented a majority, as
indicated by the signed authorization cards, and with his finding, contrary to Respondent
Company's contention, that the cards were not signed on the representation that they
would only be used for the purpose of filing a petition for a representation election.
Member Brown concurs in finding that the Union represented a majority of the employees,
but does so for the reason that in his opinion the signed designation cards are the best
evidence of the signatories' intent, absent a showing of fraud or coercion.
158 NLRB No. 85.