Huntsville Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 891 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 891
,ees requested by the Petitioner constitute only a segment of tha Em-
ployer's unrepresented plant clerical employees,3 to grant -"them a
separate unit would require that we give controlling effect to the extent
of the Petitioner's organization among such plant clerical employees.
The Act, as amended, precludes a finding on this basis alone.4 More-
over, it appears that there are certain clerical employees, such as the
stenographic clerks A and B, who are not sought to be included in the
unit although they perform functions similar to those of the requested
-employees. We shall therefore dismiss the petition.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
3It is now well settled that timekeepers engaged in the normal functions of their
classification , like those involved herein, are in fact plant clerical employees . Arcade
Manufacturing Division of Rockwell Manufacturing Company, 96 NLRB 116 ; Goodman
Manufacturing Coin pang , 93 NLRB 1001 ; Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg Co. Inc, 93 NLRB
No. 90 , Westelox, Division of General Time Instruments Corporation , 82 NLRB 198;
II. 0. Canfield Company , 76 NLRB 606 ; Northwest Engineering Company, 73 NLRB 40.
'To the extent that Chase Aircraft Company, Inc ., 91 NLRB 288, contains language which
.appears to be inconsistent with existing Board policy respecting timekeepers, it is
hereby overruled
4 Section 9 (c) (5). See Westclox, Division of General Time Instruments Corpora-
tion, supra.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PETITIONER and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO . Case No. 10-RM-77. October
17, 1951
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election
entered into by the Employer and the Unions"on June 25, 1951, an
'election by secret ballot was conducted on July 10, 1951, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished
a tally of ballots, which shows that of approximately 1,397 eligible
voters, 1,388 cast ballots. Of the ballots cast, 844 were in favor of,
and 540 against, the Union, 2 were challenged, and 2 were void.
On July 16, 1951, the Employer filed objections to the election.
On August 17, 1951, the Regional Director issued a report on 'elec-
tion, objections to election, and recommendations to the Board, in
which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that the
Board certify the Union.
'The Union is acting in its own behalf as well as in behalf of its affiliated Local 38,
-which has members within the appropriate unit.
96 NLRB No. 127
S92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 27, 1951, the Employer filed exceptions to the report,
in substance alleging that the Regional Director did not conduct a
proper investigation of its objections within the meaning of Section
102.61 of the Rules and Regulations, and that Board agents improperly
influenced the election by allowing an ineligible voter to cast a chal-
lenged ballot and by permitting employees who were union officers to
•act as observers?
- With regard to the Employer's first ground of exception, the
Regional Director has reported that, upon receipt of the Employer's
objections and in accord with usual Board practice, he requested the
Employer to submit prima faicie'evidence, in affidavit form, of persons
having first-hand knowledge respecting the matters raised in the objec-
tions. The Employer's reply merely requested that the Board agent
theretofore assigned to the case be replaced by another agent, although
it expressly stated that it did not in any way wish to cast any imputa-
tions of any kind. The Regional Director informed,the Employer
that the assignment was made on the basis of availability of personnel,
geography, and case load of individual staff members, and that, since
the Employer had made no allegation of misconduct but, on the con-
trary, had denied any imputations of any kind against the Board
agent, the investigation would not be reassigned. The Employer was
again requested to submit prima facie evidence in support of its objec-
tions. In reply, the Employer repeated its objection regarding the-
assignment of the investigation, and refused to comply with the request
,for prima facie evidence. Although the Employer thereafter cast
vague innuendoes against the agent, it has not made any -specific
charges.
. We find that the assignment of -the investigation of the objections
to the Board agent who conducted the election was proper, in the
absence of any valid allegation of misconduct on the part of the agent.'
In view of the fact that the Employer was twice requested to furnish
some evidence of its claims and refused to do so, and in the absence of
any manifest interference with the election, we find, contrary to the
Employer's contention, that the investigation was proper and
sufficient .4
-- With regard to the challenged ballot, the Employer contends that
acceptance under challenge of the ballot of a replaced striker consti=
tuted a breach of the consent agreement. However, this contention is
.2 The Employer originally objected that the Board agent 's retention of the ballot box
in his custody away 'from the presence of the observers between voting periods afforded
an opportunity to place in or remove from said ballot box ballots marked in a manner
not to reflect the true intention of the voters." However, , this objection is not urged
in its exceptions . Moreover , we have held that, absent • allegation,of irregularity, such
an objection does not raise a substantial or material issue with respect to - the conduct
,of an - election . ., Fairmont Mills; 'Inc.; 87 NLRB 21. - I ; -r ' 1 : q-
Fehr Baking Company, 90 NLRB 2193 , footnote 5..•
4 Wiley Mfg . Inc., 93 NLRB 1600 .
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY :; T 893
not a ground for vacating the election, unless acceptance of the ballot
under challenge improperly influenced the results of the election.
True, the Employer alleges that acceptance of the ballot led the voters
to believe that the Board was backing the Union in its claim that em-
ployees replaced during the strike should be rehired, and that the
Board was opposing the Employer's refusal to rehire them".' How
ever, the Employer presented no evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, to'
substantiate this allegation. Consequently, we find that the action of
the Board agent in accepting under challenge and impounding the
ballot of a replaced economic striker did not improperly influence the
results of the election.5
With regard to the use of the Union's officers and committeemen as
observers, the Employer contends that they improperly affected the
results of the election because they had allegedly participated in mass
-picketing, threats of violence, and acts of intimidation during the
strike. However, no evidence has been presented to substantiate-this
charge. Under all the circumstances, we find that the exceptions do
not raise substantial or material issues with regard to the conduct or
results of the election.
As the tally shows that a majority of all the valid ballots cast were
for Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, and that the two chal-
lenged ballots were insufficient to affect the results of the election, we
shall certify that Union as the collective bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit. -
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Textile Workers Union of America, CIO,
has been designated and selected by a majority of the production and
maintenance, employees of Huntsville Manufacturing Company,
Huntsville, Alabama, including watchmen and firemen, but excluding
guards,. clerical employees, time and frequency checkers, employees
hired for and employed solely in connection with a specific construc-
tion or installation job of limited duration and not a; part of the Em-
ployer's' regular production or maintenance operations, executives,
supervisors with the rank of second hand or higher, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of
the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive representative of
5 We further find that there was no breach of the agreement by the Board agent. The
parties were informed on the day before the election that, in accordance with the.usual
Board practice , the ballot of any replaced striker who appeared at the polls would be
accepted under challenge, and that if the Employer could not agree to this procedure
it could withdraw its consent to the election . Employer contends that the Union 's assur-
ance that no replaced striker would attempt to vote was binding on the Board. This
contention is without merit, inasmuch as any such assurance was made - without approval
of the Board 's- agents, as the Employer admits in a letter written by its attorney to '66
Regional Director on July 10, 1951. ,.,, e
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and STYLEs took no part in the consideration;
of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.
THE GIRDLER CORPORATION ( DANA PROJECT ) and OFFICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 35-RC--51.
October 17, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, *a hearing was held in this case before
Robert Volger, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed..
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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations 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 employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree upon a unit of all office and clerical employees,
at the Employer's Dana Project in Indiana; they also agree as to ac
number of specific inclusions and exclusions, as set forth in detail in.
the unit description below. They disagree only with respect to cer-
tain employees loaned to the Atomic Energy Commission, a number
of material checkers, and the buyers, all of whom the Employer, un-
like the Petitioner, would exclude from the bargaining unit for various
reasons.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacturing and construction
business; at the Dana Project, its only operation here involved, it is,
constructing new facilities for the Atomic Energy Commission. This
proceeding concerns only the office and clerical employees, who totaled
about 300 at the date of the hearing, and of whom all but approxi-
mately 30 are located in the two buildings which house the nonmanual
workers.
Buyers: The Employer urges exclusion of seven buyers on the
ground that they are managerial employees. By telephone and letter-
96 NLRB No. 137.