Stanislaus Implement & Hardware Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 22, 195092 N.L.R.B. 897 (N.L.R.B. 1950) Copy Citation In the Matter of STANISLAUS IMPLEMENT & HARDWARE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and DISTRICT LODGE No. 41, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 2O-RC-1068 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES December 22, 1950 Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the National. Labor Relations Board on October 31, 1950, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region. Upon the conclusion- of the balloting, a tally of ballots was issued and served upon the parties hereto. The tally shows that of the 30 ballots cast, 15 were cast in favor of and 14 against the Petitioner, and 1 ballot was chal- lenged by the Petitioner. As the challenged ballot was sufficient to affect the result of the" election, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, there- after, on November 15, 1950, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballot, recommending that the challenge to the ballot be sustained. On November 24, 1950, the Employer filed exceptions to this report. In his report the Regional Director found that the challenged ballot was cast by Edmond Zimmerman, a nephew of the Employer's president-general manager and of its vice president. The Regional Director's recommendation that the challenge to Zimmerman's bal- lot be sustained was based upon his close relationship to these officials. In its exceptions the Employer admits Zimmerman's relationship to the foregoing officials but asserts that he has no social contact with them and works under conditions identical with those of the other eligible employees. The Employer contends that for these reasons and because the Act does not provide for the exclusion from bargain- ing units of employees with close family relationship to management, the challenge to Zimmerman's ballot should be overruled and the ballot counted. 92 NLRB No. 155. 897 ;898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD While the Act does not expressly provide for the exclusion from bargaining units of employees who are closely related to management,. .Section 9 (b) of the Act does impose on the Board the function of determining in each case the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. In the exercise of this function the Board :traditionally excludes from the appropriate unit those employees who do not have a sufficient interest in common with the other em- ployees to warrant their inclusion therein. The Board, early in its history, decided that close relatives of management officials do not :appropriately belong in a unit of rank-and-file employees because such relationship sufficiently distinguishes their interests from those of the other employees to warrant their exclusion from the unit 1 We have continued this policy and in several recent cases have excluded nephews of management officials from bargaining units 2 Accord- ingly, we find that Zimmerman was not eligible to vote and sustain the'challenge to his ballot. As it appears from the tally of ballots that the Petitioner has .secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the ,collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS ]HEREBY CERTIFIED that District Lodge No. 41, International Association of Machinists has been designated and selected by a ma- jority of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the Decision .and Direction of Election herein, as their representative for the pur- pose of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) .of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive repre- -sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment. 1 Louis Weinberg Associates, Incorporated, 13 NLRB 66 ; Jerry and Edythe Belanger, 32 NLRB 1276. 2 Rosedale Passenger Lines, Inc., 85 NLRB 527; Peter Pan Bus Lines , 82 NLRB 830. In O: Phillip Faucher, d /b/a Superior Bakery, 78 NLRB 1172, we excluded an employer's uncle. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation