H. O. Canfield Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 1027 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of H. O. CANFIELD COMPANY, EMPLOYER R and H. 0.
CANFIELD RUBBER WORKERS UNION, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC-40
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
DIRECTION
December 1, 1948
On March 5, 1948, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, issued its Decision and Direction of Election in the above-
entitled proceeding.' At the time of the decision, an economic strike
was in progress at the Employer's plant and the plant was operating
with replacement employees. As the Board was unable accurately
to determine, at that stage of the proceeding, who of the striking em-
ployees had been validly replaced and who were entitled to reinstate-
ment and therefore eligible to vote in the election, the Board directed
an immediate election, permitting all employees to participate who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of the Direction of Election. All persons hired since July 25,
1947, the date of the strike, and all strikers were deemed presump-
tively eligible to vote, subject to challenge. In the event that the
counting of the challenged ballots would affect the results of the
election, the question as to which of these ballots were to be opened
and counted was to await a further investigation concerning the em-
ployment status of the individual strikers and their replacements.
On April 2, 1948, pursuant to the above Decision and Direction, an
election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Second Region. Upon the
conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties
in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The Tally shows that 78 ballots were cast for the Petitioner, 3 were
cast against the Petitioner, 1 ballot was void, and 288 2 ballots were
challenged.
1 76 N L R B 606.
2 Although the Tally shows that 288 ballots were challenged , the Regional Director
reports that there were actually only 284 challenged ballots.
80 N. L R. B., No. 153.
817319-49-vol. 80-66 1027
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The number of challenged ballots was thus sufficient to affect the
results of the election and the Regional Director conducted an inves-
tigation of the challenges, as well as of objections filed to the conduct
of the election, and duly served upon the parties a Report on Objec-
tions and Challenged Ballots. In his report he recommended that
the objections be overruled,3 that the challenges to the ballots of S. M.
Marcello, A. Pihonak, J. Senito, A. R. Trew, J. Wargo, and W. A.
Watkins be overruled, and that the challenges to the ballots of Albert
Petrucciano, Joseph Lauretta, and Lucy Carbone be sustained. How-
ever, as to the ballots of the striking employees and of their replace-
ments, and as to the ballots of John D'Andrea, Anthony D'Andrea,
Carmine Eanuzzi, Joseph La Porte, Vito Martone, and Frances Ram-
sey who, he found, had joined the ranks of the strikers, he made no
recommendation, referring these ballots to the Board for disposition.
The Petitioner and the Employer thereafter filed exceptions only as
to the Regional Director's failure to make recommendations regard-
ing the final disposition of this group of challenged ballots 4
On August 26, 1948, the Board issued its Order remanding the pro-
ceeding to the Regional Director for further investigation and recom-
mendations as to the eligibility of voters whose ballots were referred to
the Board without any recommendation. On October 14,1947, the Re-
gional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his Supple-
mental Report on Objections .5 In his Supplemental Report, the
Regional Director made the following findings and recommendations :
A. Lucy Reitter, who was challenged as a replaced striker, and B.
M. Deyo, E. Gardner, M. Halak, E. Hatton, Z. Hodge, Jr., T. V. Hop-
kins, J. Manoni, Mary Martino, E. M. Milton, M. L. Meyers, W. P.
Pellino, G. Powell, and Alice Robidoux, all of whom were challenged
as replacements, were eligible to vote, and the challenges to their bal-
8 The objections were filed on behalf of the Intervenor and allegedly on behalf of
eight individual employees . The Intervenor was not in compliance with Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act and therefore was not accorded a place on the ballot. In his
report, the Regional Director found that the alleged individual objectors herein were
acting on behalf of, and under the control of, the Intervenor and that the objections
raised no substantial and material issues with respect to the election . While we agree
with the Regional Director's finding on the merits of these objections we find that the
objections should be overruled for more fundamental reasons, namely , that a union whose
name does not appear on the ballot in an election has no standing to file objections to
the election and that individual employees who are not parties to a representation
election have no standing to file objections thereto. Matter of Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, 78 N. L. R. B. 315; Matter of Norcal Packing Co., 76 N. L . R. B. 254.
4 Exceptions to so much of the Regional Director's report as recommended that the
objections to the conduct of the election be overruled , were filed on behalf of the Inter-
venor and the eight individuals referred to in footnote 3 supra. For the reasons stated
therein we shall not entertain these exceptions.
6 Although so entitled , this document was, in effect , a Supplemental Report on
Challenged Ballots. ( See footnotes 3 and 4, supra.)
H. O. CANFIELD COMPANY 1029
lots should be overruled and their ballots should be opened and
counted.
B. D. L. Filo and H. A. Hughy, who were challenged as replace-
ments, were not eligible to vote, and the challenges to their ballots
should be sustained.
C. As to the remaining challenged ballots, 134 of which were cast
by replacements and 120 6 of which were cast by striking employees,
only the replacements were eligible to vote because they constituted
valid permanent replacements of the strikers. The challenges to the
ballots of the replacements should be overruled and their ballots
counted and the challenges to the ballots of the strikers should be
sustained.?
No exceptions were filed to the Supplemental Report on Objections 8
within the time provided therefor, and, as previously noted, no excep-
tions were taken to the Regional Director's recommendations in the
original report that the challenges to 6 ballots be overruled and that
the challenges to 3 others be sustained. In the absence of such ex-
ceptions, the Boards hereby adopts the recommendations of the Re-
gional Director in his original and supplemental reports. We shall,
therefor, direct that the ballots of B. M. Deyo, E. Gardner, M. Halak,
E. Hatton, Z. Hodge, Jr., T. V. Hopkins, J. Manoni, Mary Martino,
E. M. Milton, M. L. Meyers, W. P. Pellino, G. Powell, Alice Robidoux,
Lucy Reitter, S. M. Marcello, A. Pihonak, J. Senito, A. R. Trew, J.
Wargo, W. A. Watkins, and the 134 additional votes cast by the re-
placements be opened and counted; and the challenges to the ballots
of Albert Petrucciano, Joseph Lauretta, Lucy Carbone, D. L. Filo,
H. A. Hughy, John D'Andrea, Anthony D'Andrea, Carmine Eanuzzi,
Joseph LaPorte, Vito Martone, Frances Ramsey, and to the remaining
120 ballots cast by strikers are hereby sustained.
DIRECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with H. O. Canfield Company,
Bridgeport, Connecticut, the Regional Director for the Second Region
This figure does not include the ballots of John D 'Andrea, Anthony D 'Andrea,
Carmine Eanuzzi , Joseph La Porte, Vito Martone, and Frances Ramsey. The disposition
of the challenges to their ballots is identical to that of the challenges to the ballots of the
other strikers.
7 Matter of The Pipe Machinery Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 1322.
The Regional Director 's report did not contain a list of the strikers and the replace-
ments in this group. However , the names of these inidviduals are known to the parties
and to the Regional Director.
8 See footnote 4, supra.
9 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel
consisting of the undersigned Board Members [Houston, Murdock, and Gray].
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor
Relations Board, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the challenged ballots cast by B. M. Deyo, E. Gardner,
M. Halak, E. Hatton, Z. Hodge, Jr., T. V. Hopkins, J. Manoni, Mary
Martino, E. M. Milton, M. L. Meyers, W. P. Pellino, G. Powell, Alice
Robidoux, Lucy Reitter, S. M. Marcello, A. Pihonak, J. Senito, A. R.
Trew, J. Wargo, W. A. Watkins, and the 134 votes cast by the re-
placement employees and shall, thereafter, prepare and cause to be
served upon the parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots, including
therein the count of said challenged ballots.