Winter Seal Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 659 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

WINTER SEAL CORPORATION 659
Winter Seal Corporation and International Union , United Auto-
mobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 174, UAW (AFL-CIO), Petitioner . Case No-
7-RC-3182. March 18,1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on July 25,
1956, in the above-entitled case,' an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on August 21, 1956, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Seventh Region among the employees
in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the close of the elec-
tion, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, which shows
that 'of approximately 222 eligible voters, 118 cast ballots for the
Petitioner, 93 cast ballots against the Petitioner, and there were a
challenged ballots.
Thereafter the Employer filed timely objections to the election
in which, as amplified during the course of the investigation, it al-
leged, in substance, that: (1) The Board should not have directed the
election because there was in effect a contract between the Employer
and a shop committee which constituted a bar; (2) it was error to
omit the shop committee from the ballot ; (3) the unit was inappro-
priate; (4) certain employees were arbitrarily precluded from voting
in the election; and (5) the Employer was not represented by counsel
prior to the election and relied to its prejudice on advice of the Board's
agents?
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Re-
gional Director caused an investigation to be made and, on Decem-
ber 4, 1956, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on
objections to election and recommendation, in which he found that
the objections did not raise substantial and material issues with
respect to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results
of the election, and recommended that the objections be overruled
and that the Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the unit defined in the Board's De-
cision and Direction of Election. The Employer filed timely exceptions
to the Regional Director's report, alleging that substantial and ma-
terial issues exist respecting the conduct of the election and requesting
that a hearing be held thereon.
On May 4, 1956, the Petitioner filed its petition requesting an
election among all production and maintenance employees excluding
Not iepoited in punted volumes of Board Decisions and (hdei,
'In its exceptions the Employee withdrew its remaining objection, that the Petitioner
had coerced the employee, into voting foi it
117 NLRB No. 99
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guards and supervisors, and setting forth that no other union was
recognized or certified for these employees. On the same day, the
Regional Director sent a letter to the Employer requesting, inter ilia,
:a copy of any existing or recently expired contracts covering the em-
ployees described in the petition. On May 21, the Employer sub-
mitted to the Region copies of two contracts covering employee's at
,this plant, both of which were with Local 337, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 337. One of these contracts covered
truckdrivers, and the other, certain installation employees. The Em-
ployer concedes it did not submit to the Region the contract which
it now contends is a bar to this proceeding.
The hearing was held on May 28 and the Employer was repre-
sented by its secretary, M. R. Rogers. Local 337 moved to intervene.
No other labor organization was given notice or attempted to inter-
vene. All parties, including the Employer's representative, stipu-
lated, inter alia, that a question of representation existed, and that a
unit of all production and maintenance employees including dockmen
and shipping clerks, but excluding truckdrivers, drivers, driver-
installers, office clerical employees, professional employees, drafts-
men, design engineers, technical employees, guards, and supervisors,
was appropriate. The Employer's representative did not mention
the existence of a shop committee nor raise any contract as a bar. The
Board's Decision and Direction of Election, referred to above, di-
rected an election in the stipulated unit with only the Petitioner on
the ballot.' At the election certain employees not specifically excluded
from the unit did not vote. The names of most of them were not on
the eligibility list furnished by the Employer and the number of
those who did not vote and the challenged ballots together would be
sufficient to affect the results of the election.
The Regional Director found, inter alia, that all of the Employer's
objections were made too late. Except as to objection (4), we' agree.
The Employer was represented at the hearing and was afforded full
opportunity to raise these issues at that time but failed to do so. It
is well established that the record will not be reopened at this post-
election stage of the proceedings on the question of contract bar 5
or appropriateness of a stipulated unit which, as in this case, violates
no Board policy.' In addition, the Board adheres to the policy of
3 Local 337's motion to intervene was denied and it was omitted from the ballot for
reasons not relevant here.
A 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 Leedom and
Members Murdock and Rodge,s]
s Superior Sleeprste Corporation , 106 NLRB 228 , Great Lakes Pipe Lines Company,
92 NLRB 583, footnote 1.
6 Hofman Hardware Co, 112 NLRB 982 , footnote 2; Stanley Aviation Corporation.
112 NLRB 461, 463.
WINTER SEAL CORPORATION 661
"honoring concessions made in the interest of expeditious handling
of representation cases in general"' notwithstanding that a party
chose not to retain counsel,8 or that it allegedly relied on misinforma-
tion supplied by Board agents.' Further as to the shop committee,
which the Regional Director's investigation revealed has been in
existence for some years, we find that it has not been prejudiced by
its omission from the ballot. Although the committee did not re-
ceive formal notice of this proceeding, its members were aware of the
Petitioner's organization drive, which was open and continuous, of
the hearing, and of the election. Nevertheless, up to this time it has
made no move to intervene in this proceeding. On the contrary, the
committee, at a meeting called for this purpose, took the affirmative
position that it did not wish to participate in the election, and notified
the employees of its position in a published bulletin. In any event,
even if the committee had made timely request therefor, it could not
have been accorded a place on the ballot because it has neither com-
plied, nor indicated an intention to comply, with the filing require-
ments of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. We shall, therefore,
overrule objections (1), (2), (3), and (5).
With respect to objection (4), we do not agree with the Regional
Director that it was untimely, as it pertains to the conduct of the
election. We do agree, however, that it is without merit. In support
of this objection, the Employer submitted to the Regional Director a
list of 23 employees,10 classified as servicemen, shipping employees,
receiving employees, checkers, checkers (inside), and timekeepers, who
it contends were arbitrarily precluded from voting. However, con-
trary to the Employer, the unit description clearly does not exclude
these classifications. Moreover, the eligibility list, which the Em-
ployer submitted and which did not contain most of these names, was
not communicated to the employees," and no reason has been advanced
as to why they should not have presented themselves at the polls where,
in accordance with customary. Board procedure, they would have been
permitted to vote subject to challenge. As there is therefore no in-
dication that the procedure established for the conduct of this elec-
tion improperly deprived eligible employees of an opportunity to
vote, we shall, in accordance with the Regional Director's recom-
mendation, overrule this objection.'a
7 Stanley Aviation Corporation, supra
8 A. M. Andrews Company of Oregon, 112 NLRB 626, 627
0 West Texas Utilities Company, Inc., 85 NLRB 1396, 1398, enfd 184 F 2d 233
(C. A, D. C ), cert . denied 341 U. S. 939.
w The Employer does not except to the Regional Director's finding that 47 of the 70
names originally submitted are in a unit separately represented by Local 337, and
apparently concedes that these employees were properly excluded
31 The Employer did not except to the Regional Director's finding to this effect.
12 Cf . Alterman -Bag Apple , Inc, 116 NLRB 1078
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under these circumstances , we find without merit the Employer's
exceptions , and we shall , in accordance with the recommendations of
the Regional Director , overrule the objections and certify the Peti-
tioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees in the appropriate unit."
[The Board certified International Union , United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 174,
UAW (AFL-CIO), as the designated collective -bargaining represent-
ative of the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
plant located at 14575 Meyers Road, Detroit , Michigan, including
dockmen and shipping clerks, but excluding truckdrivers , drivers,
driver-installers , office clerical employees , professional employees,
draftsmen , design engineers , technical employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.]
13 In view of our decision herein , the Employer 's request for a hearing is denied.
Brunswick Quick Freezer , Inc. and Seafarers International Union
of North America , AFL-CIO, Atlantic and Gulf District, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 10-RC-3741. Mardi 18,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Paul L. Harper,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the 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 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 Section 2 (6) (7) of the Act.
The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Petitioner made an insufficient showing of interest because the hear-
ing officer included in his computation several authorization cards
submitted at the hearing. Alternatively, it moves that the authen-
ticity of the signatures on these additional cards be verified against
the Employer's records or that the Board redetermine the Petitioner's
showing of interest against a later payroll list than the one it submitted
at the hearing.
It appears that the Employer submitted at the hearing for the
first time the customary payroll list required by the Board covering
117 NLRB No. 98.