Whitinsville Spinning Ring Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1201 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WHITINSVILLE SPINNING RING COMPANY 1201
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
-representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. All employees at the Employer's Orange, Texas, plant, excluding
office clerks, salesmen, engineers, draftsmen, over-the-road truck
drivers, guards, watchmen, executives, superintendents, and super-
visors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.
WHITINSVILLE SPINNING RING COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-1006. April 4,1951
Decision and Certification of Representatives
On January 30, 1951, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted among the
employees in the stipulated unit under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the First Region. Upon the completion
of the election, the Regional Director issued and duly served a tally of
ballots upon the parties concerned. The tally shows that the vote
was distributed as follows :
Number of eligible voters ----- --------------------------------- 82
Void ballots -------------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast for Petitioner --------------------------------------- 39
Votes cast against Petitioner ----------------------------------- 38
Valid votes counted ------------------------------------------- 77
Challenged ballots --------------------------------------------- 1
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots -------- ------------- 78
As the challenged ballot was determinative of the results of the
election, the Regional Director, in accordance with Section 102.61
of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, made an investigation into
the matter , and, on February 7, 1951, filed a report on challenges. In
his report the Regional Director recommended that the challenged
ballot be considered a void ballot, and that the tally of ballots be
revised accordingly. On February 15, 1951, the Employer filed ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following findings of fact:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the Em-
ployer.
93 NLRB No. 209.
943732-51-77
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting cominerce 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. All production, maintenance, and shipping room employees of
the Employer at its Whitinsville, Massachusetts, plant, excluding
office and professional employees, guards, working foremen, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective- bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The challenged ballot involved was not taken as a challenge
during the course of the election. After the polls were closed and
while the ballots were being counted, a question arose as to the dispo-
sition of this ballot. The ballot was.-thereupon placed in a "Chal-
lenged Ballot Envelope" and reported as a challenged ballot in the
tally.
The facts concerning the ballot in question are not in dispute. The
ballot is the usual form employed by the Board where only one labor
organization is involved. The employees were requested to vote
"Yes" or "No" on the question of whether they wanted the Petitioner
to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining, and to
indicate their choice by marking an "X" in the appropriate square.
The ballot contains an instruction that if the ballot should be spoiled,
the voter should return it to the Board agent for a new one. The
ballot before us has a clear "X" in the "No" square,, and a diagonal
single line, with clear evidence of an erasure, in the "Yes" square.
The Employer contends that the voter clearly expressed his inten-
tion to vote "No," and argues that the evidence of erasure in the "Yes"
square supports this contention. The Petitioner, on the contrary,
maintains that, as there are marks in both the "Yes" and "No" squares,
the ballot is ambiguous and therefore void.
We agree with the Regional Director's disposition of this matter,
and we find no merit in the Employer's exceptions. As there is an
erasure in a material part of the disputed ballot, we find the ballot
to be mutilated and therefore void.2 The tally of ballots is revised
accordingly.
As the revised tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has secured
a majority of the ballots cast in the election, we shall certify the Peti-
tioner as the bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all produc-
' This is the unit agreed upon in the stipulation for the consent election.
2 Palmetto Cotton Mills, Inc., 63 NLRB 421.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1203
tion, maintenance, and shipping room employees of the Whitinsville
Spinning Ring Company at its Whitinsville, Massachusetts, plant,
excluding office and professional employees, guards, working fore-
men, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, as their represent-
ative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, is
the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose's of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 1366
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS "OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 720, AFL and CHARLES J. BAKER. Cases Nos. 15-CA-081 and
15-CB-58. March 28,1951
Decision and Order Remanding Case
On November 2, 1950, at the close of the General Counsel's case,
Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., orally granted a motion of the
Respondent, Local No. 720, to dismiss the entire complaint herein.
The complaint as dismissed alleged in substance that the Respondent
Employer discriminated with respect to hire and tenure of employ-
ment, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, by discharging six employees, and that, by demanding their dis-
charge, Local No. 720 attempted to cause and caused the Employer to
discriminate against the six employees in violation of Section 8 (b)
(2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
At the close of the General Counsel's case, the record showed that
Local No. 720, the holder of a valid union-security contract, had de-
manded that the Employer discharge the six employees for nonmem-
bership and that the Employer had acceded to the demand. In dis-
missing the complaint, the Trial Examiner assumed for the purpose of
his ruling that Local No. 720 had not waived a previously imposed re-
quirement that the six employees pay, in addition to uniform initiation
fees and periodic dues, an ex-membership fee of $5 as a condition of
obtaining membership in Local No. 720. The waiver issue was not
fully litigated and the Trial Examiner made no finding with respect to
it. He ruled in substance that the imposition of the ex-membership
fee was discriminatory within the meaning of proviso (A) to Sec-
93 NLRB No. 178.