World Southern Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 287 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

WORLD SOUTHERN CORPORATION
World Southern Corporation and United Steelwork-
ers of America, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case
11- RC- 3942
December 4, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
KENNEDY
On September 9, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 11 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above- entitled proceeding, in which he found
that there was a substantial and representative segment
of the Employer's ultimate complement of employees,
and directed an immediate election. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a request for review of the Regional
Director's Decision on the ground that he departed
from officially reported Board precedent in directing an
immediate election where there was immediate and cer-
tain planned expansion of the present employee com-
plement.
By telegraphic order dated October 2, 1974, the
Board granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three- member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and makes
the following findings:
On August 10, 1974, the date on which the hearing
herein was conducted, there were approximately 297
employees on the job. By October 1, there would be 372
and, on November 1, 445 employees with the ultimate
complement of 550 employees by April 12, 1975.
The Decision and Direction of Election issued Sep-
tember 9, 1974, with eligibility determined by the pay-
roll period immediately preceding that date.
In the circumstances of this case we agree with the
Employer that the Regional Director, by using a pay-
roll period preceding September 9, 1974, unreasonably
disenfranchised a substantial number of employees who
28.7
were definitely scheduled to be hired by the first part
of November 1974.'
Accordingly, we hereby remand the case to the Re-
gional Director for the purpose of conducting an elec-
tion pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion, except that the payroll period for determining
eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the issu-
'ance date of this Decision on Review. [Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
I dissented from the grant of review in this case, and
I dissent here again from the majority's finding that the
Regional Director somehow erred in issuing a Decision
on September 9, 1974, in which he directed an immedi-
ate election in the unit involved here rather than wait-
ing until some later time when the Employer's work
force would be larger.
On the facts, the Regional Director correctly con-
cluded that the Employer's operations were sufficiently
established and stabilized and were manned by a sub-
stantial and representative segment of the Employer's
ultimate working complement so that an immediate
election could be directed. His decision was consistent
with applicable Board precedent2 and I therefore dis-
sent from the majority's failure to adopt it.
1 It is noted that in the cases relied on by our dissenting colleague, the
eligibility periods for the elections were fixed so as to render eligible a
substantial number of employees who were scheduled to be hired within
several months after the close of the respective hearings therein.
2 see, e.g., Rheem Manufacturing Company, 188 NLRB 436 (1971);
General Cable Corporation, 173 NLRB 251 (1968). While the majority
notes that in these two Decisions the Board included, as eligible employees,
a substantial number of employees who were hired within several months
after the close of the respective hearings therein, such action by the Board
is clearly explainable by the length of time that had passed between the
hearings in those cases and the issuance of the Decisions and Directions of
Elections therein. Thus, 3 months passe. in Rheem Manufacturing between
hearing and Decision date, and over 4 months so elapsed in General Cable.
Here, the Regional Director was able to issue his Decision 19 days after the
hearing. While it may well be that, had the Regional Director taken as long
to issue his Decision as was taken in Rheem Manufacturing and General
Cable, he would have included the employees that the majority now in-
cludes, that is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether the Regional
Director correctly concluded that the complement of employees present at
the time of his Decision and Direction of Election was sufficiently represen-
tative and substantial to warrant holding an immediate election. This is the
test set out in Rheem Manufacturing and General Cable and what these
cases stand for. On such a test, I conclude the Regional Director was correct
in issuing his Decision and Direction of Election at the time he did.
215 NLRB No. 83