Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 6 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CLIPPARD INSTRUMENT LABORATORY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 9-RC-1038. April N4,1951
Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election ' issued on De-
cember 21, 1950, an election was conducted in this proceeding on
January 17, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the unit here-
tofore found appropriate.
The tally of ballots shows 60 valid ballots cast for the Petitioner;
9 valid ballots cast for the Intervenor; 2 52 valid ballots cast against,
both labor organizations ; and 24 challenged ballots. the Intervenor
filed timely objections to the conduct of the election, alleging that,
about January 16, 1951, the Employer polled its employees during
working hours to determine whether they desired to be represented by
a labor organization, and promised them benefits if they voted against
such representation.3 The Intervenor requested that the election be
set aside.
On February 28, 1951, the Regional Director issued his report on
challenged ballots and objections to the election. The Regional Di-
rector, finding that the Employer's conduct raised substantial and
material issues with respect to the election, although the Employer
refused to admit or deny the facts as found, recommended that the
election be set aside, but made no investigation or recommendation
concerning the challenged ballots.
On March 9, 1951, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional
Director's report, agreeing with his recommendation that the election
be set aside (for the reason that it was inconclusive), but excepting to
his failure to pass on the validity of the challenged ballots.
The Employer contends in its exceptions that the Regional Director
should make an investigation of the challenged ballots on the ground,
in substance, that because the voters whose ballots were challenged
may vote at a new election, a present determination of their voting
eligibility will then be advantageous. We do not agree. Employees
who voted and whose ballots were challenged at the first election might
not appear at the polls to vote at a new election. If, however, they do
vote at the new election, it does not follow that their ballots will be
challenged, or that the challenges to their ballots, if there be any,
will be for the same reasons as those given at the first election. We
therefore see no advantage in resolving these questions of voting
i Unpublished.
R Lodge 789 , District 34, International Association of Machinists.
3 On January 17, 1951 , the Intervenor filed charges of unfair labor practices in Case
No. 9-CA-366, alleging these acts as violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. On
March 8 , 1951, the Regional Director issued a complaint in Case No . 9-CA-366.
94 NLRB No. 4.
J. N. ADAM & CO. 7
eligibility at this time, and find no merit in the Employer's contention.
We therefore overrule the Employer's exceptions.
Accordingly, as there is no exception to the Regional Director's
recommendation that the election be set aside, we shall set aside the
election, and shall direct that a new election be held when the Regional
Director shall advise the Board that circumstances permit the free
choice of a bargaining representative.'
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on January 17, 1951,
among employees of Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc., at its
Cincinnati, Ohio, plant, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
4 Craddock -Terry Shoe Corporation , 82 NLRB 161.
J. N. ADAM & CO. and BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL 264, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-604.
April 24, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Cavers, hearing
officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 employees
of the Employer.3
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
1 At the hearing , Local 449 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of Ameiica , A. F. L., withdrew its motion to intervene herein.
P At the hearing , the Employer and Retail Clerks Union , Local 212, affiliated with
Retail Clerks International Association , A F L., the Intervenor herein , moved to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the Petitioner ' s showing of interest is inadequate. The
hearing officer referred ruling on the motion to the Board. Because it is well established
that the requirement of a showing of interest is an administrative expedient , not litigable
by the parties , we deny the motion. Veneer Products , Inc., 81 NLRB 492.
8 We find no merit in the contention of the Intervenor that employees involved herein
are ineligible for membership in the Petitioner , and therefore may not be found to
constitute an appropriate unit. A jurisdictional limitation on membership is not con-
trolling on the unit issue . Denton's, Inc ., tea Robinson-Schwenn Store, 83 NLRB 35,
and cases cited therein.
94 NLRB No. 5.