Shaw-Randall Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 3, 1956116 N.L.R.B. 444 (N.L.R.B. 1956) Copy Citation 444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. - 5. Contrary to the Employer and IBEW, the IAM contends that the petition is premature because the Employer's operations are in the process of expansion. The record shows that there are at present 7 employees in 2 classi- fications in the production department which is comprised entirely of employees who constitute the unit found appropriate herein. The record testimony indicates that dependent upon the number and type of contracts secured, the Employer expects an increase of from 50 to 100 percent in the number of employees to be employed in the production department in the next 6 months. However, no new employee classifications are contemplated and it appears that the present work force is sufficient to handle the volume of business neces- sary to meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. As it is clear from the record that the present work force is representative and the extent of expansion is purely speculative, we find no merit in the contention of the IAM. We shall therefore direct an immediate election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Shaw-Randall Company, Inc. and New England Joint Board, affiliated with Retail , Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-470. August 3, 1956 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board on May 1, 1956, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 23, 1956, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di- rector for the First Region, among certain employees of the Employer. The tally of ballots issued after the election showed that of the ap- proximately 34 eligible voters, 28 cast valid ballots, of which 14 were for the Petitioner, 14 were against the Petitioner, and 3 ' were challenged. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re- sults of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on June 18, 1956, duly served upon the parties his report on chal- i Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 116 NLRB No. 61. SHAW-RANDALL COMPANY, INC. 445 lenged ballots. The Regional Director recommended that the chal- lenges be sustained and thereafter, on June 28, 1956, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the report on challenged ballots. Upon the basis of the Regional Director's report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following supplemental findings : The Employer challenged the ballots of Daniel Lawrence, Albert Langlois, and Richard Turcotte on the ground that they were not em- ployees of the Employer during the payroll period immediately pre- ceding the date of the Direction of Election and were therefore not eligible to vote in the election. The Petitioner contends that the above-named persons were eligible to vote on the ground that they were temporarily laid off. The Regional Director's investigation discloses that the Employer, due to a curtailment of business, terminated the employment of Law- rence, Langlois, and Turcotte in April 1956, and several other em- ployees in March and May 1956. None of these employees have been rehired; nor has any new employee been hired, since the layoffs. The Employer does not expect an increase in business in the foreseeable future and, if an increase in the work force has to be made, it will hire female employees rather than male employees. In addition, the Em- ployer expects no increase in production for at least a year. The Petitioner alleges that one of its representatives was told by the Employer shortly after the termination of the 3 disputed employees that the layoff was due to lack of work until such time as business picked up and that 2 of the 3 employees were also so informed at the time of their termination.2 Although the Employer admits that these employees were told that the layoff was due to a curtailment of busi- ness, it denies that they and the Petitioner's representative were told that they would be recalled. With respect to questions of voting eligibility, the Board has held that the determinative factor is an employee's status on the payroll eligibility date and on the date of the election.' Assuming, without deciding, that the disputed employees were told at the time of their ter- mination that it was of a temporary nature, the evidence submitted by the Petitioner shows that the reemployment of these persons depends upon improved business conditions and it appears that as of the time of the election there was no reasonable expectancy of their recall in the near future. Accordingly, we find, in agreement with the Regional 2 One of the laid-off, employees, who was terminated on a Tuesday or Wednesday, was told by the Employer's superintendent to return on the following Monday , but before that time, he received from the Employer two paychecks and he "reasoned" that he was permanently laid off. s Personal Products Corporation, 114 NLRB 959 ; Gulf States Asphalt Company, 106 NLRB 1212, 1214. 446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director, that Lawrence, Langlois, and Turcotte were ineligible to vote 4 The challenges to their ballots are therefore sustained.' As the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for New England Joint Board, affiliated with Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, and that the said labor or- ganization is not the exclusive representative of employees in the ap- propriate unit.] CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con- sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election. 4 Acme Engineering Company, 108 NLRB 608; Underwood Corpbration , 107 NLRB 1132,1135; Robert C. Matlock , d/b/a Owensboro Plating Company, 103 NLRB 993. 6 We also deny the Petitioner 's request that a hearing be held. Endicott Johnson Corporation and Truck Drivers Local No. 693, Binghamton, New York and Vicinity, International Brother- hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-1623. August 6,1966 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas H. Ramsey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of truckdrivers and their helpers.2 The Employer contends that only a unit of all its employees in the four- ' At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds. As we have found the unit to be inappropriate , we find it unnecessary at this time to rule on the Employer's remaining contentions. 2 The Petitioner further describes its unit request as including only those employees who are assigned to the truckdriver and helper category at least 50 percent of their work. ing time. The Employer takes no issue as to this refinement of the unit. 116 NLRB No. 59. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation