Wyman-Gordon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1007 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY (INGALLS-SHEPARD DIVISION) 1007
As the Petition was filed on January 30, 1959, within the certifi-
cation year, ABC's motion to dismiss the petition is hereby granted.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER RoDGERS took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
5 Centr- O-Cast, supra ; and Westinghouse Electric Corporation ( Sunnyvale Plant),
114 NLRB 1515.
Wyman-Gordon Company (Ingalls-Shepard Division ) and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 13-RC-6265. May 1, 1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director
on December 2, 1958, among the employees in the unit described
below. After the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that, of 383 valid votes counted, 185 were for
the Petitioner, 192 for the Intervenor, Employees Independent Union,
and 6 against the participating labor organizations. There were 19
challenged ballots.
After an investigation, the Regional Director on February 18, 1959,
issued his report on challenged ballots, in which he recommended
that the challenges to the 19 ballots be overruled and that the ballots
be opened and counted. The Intervenor filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's report. The Employer filed no exceptions.
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].
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 organizations involved claim 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, as stipulated by the parties, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act :
123 NLRB No. 125.
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All forge department employees at the Employer's Harvey, Illinois,
plant, including hammermen, die oilers, furnace operators, upset
operators, dammerel twisting machine operators, dammerel helpers,
forge shop laborers, forging press operators, oil carriers, manipulator
operators, die setters, die setter leaders, die setter helpers, yard men,
control and visual inspectors, lathe index men, lathe inspectors, lead
cast layout inspectors, tumbler repairmen, lead cast inspector leader,
pickle control inspectors, inspector helpers, oil control man, tong press
operators, forge shop truckers, forge shop helpers, tool and detail
men, blacksmiths and blacksmith's helpers, but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
5. In its exceptions, the Intervenor contends that the Regional
Director incorrectly applied the test as to eligibility of laid-off
employees. We agree.
The Regional Director found that 18 of the 19 challenged voters
were laid off on September 13, 1957, and the remaining 1 on March
30, 1956; that the seniority dates of such voters varried from 1952 to
1948; that under the Intervenor's contract with the Employer, sen-
iority continues for 3 years after layoff ; that the Employer has a
normal upswing in business in October of each year; that on Novem-
ber 16, 1958, a strike commenced at plants of International Har-
vester Co., reputedly a big customer of the Employer; and that as
a result of improved business conditions stemming from the Inter-
national Harvester strike, which ended January 16, 1959, the Em-
ployer in late January and early February recalled 17 of the chal-
lengees and 14 returned to work in classifications within the unit.
The eligibility date for the election was November 7, 1958, and, as
above-indicated, the election date was December 2. The Regional
Director, in concluding that the challenged voters had a reasonable
expectation of reemployment at the time of eligibility and the election,
relied on the fact that nearly all of them were rehired within 2
months of the election because of the increased business resulting
from the International Harvester strike. However, it is clear that
on November 7, the eligibility date, it was not known that a-strike
would occur at International Harvester affecting the Employer's
prospects for increased business. Indeed, on the eligibility date, the
Employer stated that it saw no possibility that additional men would
be hired in the foreseeable future. We find, therefore, notwithstand-
ing the fact that most of them were actually recalled after the elec-
tion, that on the eligibility date the challenged voters did not have a
reasonable expectation of reemployment.' Hence, they were inel-
3 See Gerber Plastic Company, 110 NLRB 269. The case of Wells Aluminum Corpora-
tion, 121 NLRB 1010, is factually distinguishable.
VOGUE LINGERIE, INC. 1009
igible to vote in the election held on December 2.2 We therefore
reject the Regional Director's recommendations and hereby. sustain
the challenges. Accordingly, as the Intervenor obtained a majority
of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Employees Independent Union as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees at the Harvey,
Illinois, plant of Wyman-Gordon Company (Ingalls-Shepard Divi-
sion), in the unit herein found appropriate.]
2 Gerber Plastic Company, supra.
Vogue Lingerie , Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union , Local 225. Case No. 4-CA-1610. May 5, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 16, 1958, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The 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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, insofar as they are consistent with this decision.
1. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent
violated the Act by discharging Sylvia Robison on August 21, 1957,
r- ^ause the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge on her behalf.
Robison was first discharged by the Respondent on August 7, 1957,
for alleged economic reasons. On August 19, 1957, the Union filed
a charge on her behalf, alleging that Robison was discharged for
engaging in union activities. On August 20, 1957, Union Organizer
Wollk, who authorized the filing of the charge, met with Plant Man-
ager Greenberg to discuss Robison's discharge. Wollk contended
that Robison was unlawfully discharged and threatened to file unfair
labor practice charges against the Respondent, if she were not rein-
123 NLRB No. 122.
508889-60-vol. 123-65