William S. Frazier

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 677 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WILLIAM S. FRAZIER +. 677
trolling now 4 Certainly, it cannot be said to have stabilized, or to
have contributed to the stabilization of, labor relations between these
Employers and their employees .5 Accordingly, we find that separate
units for each of the Employers are appropriate.
As to the greaser and washer employed by Owens & Gill Motor Co.,
his Employer would exclude him and the Petitioner is noncommittal.
The record shows that each of the units-including auto mechanics
and repairmen, together with their helpers and apprentices-is all
inclusive of garage operations. Therefore, because the greaser and
washer does ordinary garagemen's work, we shall include him in the
bargaining unit.
We find that the following employees of each of the Employers,
Brewster Motors, Karr Motor Company, and Owens & Gill Motor
Co., constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of, collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All auto
mechanics, body, fender, metal men, their helpers and apprentices,6
excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, salesmen,
professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Bellingham Automobile Dealers Association , 90 NLRB 374; Butte Motors, 85 NLRB
1336; Scott Motor Company, 84 NLRB 129.
b Retail Merchants Association of Terre Haute, Indiana, 83 NLRB 112.
B Including the greaser and washer at Owens & Gill Motor Co. The other Employers
have no employees in this category.
WILLIAM S . FRAZIER and NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF OPERATIVE
POTTERS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER . Case No.
21-RC-1150. March 5,1951
Supplemental Decision and Direction
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 dated April 25,
1950, an election by secret ballot was held on May 11, 1950, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit
heretofore found appropriate.
At the close of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which showed that there were approximately 32 eligible voters
and that 39 voters cast ballots. Of these ballots, 14 were for the
Petitioner, 11 were against the Petitioner, 1 ballot was void, and 13
were challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were
filed within the time provided therefor.
Unpublished.
93 NLRB No. 94.
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Because the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect
the results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investi-
gation, and thereafter, on May 25, 1950, issued and served upon the
parties a report on challenged ballots, in which he made the followilag
recommendations: (1) That the challenges to 5 ballots be overruled;
(2) that the challenges to 8 ballots be sustained. On June 5, 1950, the
Petitioner filed exceptions and objections to the report on challenged
ballots controverting, the Regional Director's findings as to 11 of the
challenged ballots and requesting a hearing thereon.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 2 finds :
The ballots of seven votors 3 were challenged by the Board agent at
the election on the ground that they were not on the list of -eligible
votors. The Regional Director recommended that the challenges be
sustained as the employee status of each of the voters had been ter-
minated by discharge prior to the date of the election. The Petitioner
excepts to the Regional Director's findings and contends that the em-
ployees in question were discharged in violation of the Act. Although
charges were filed and a complaint issued against the Employer al-
leging violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act in the discharge of
these individuals, all allegations of illegal discharge were subse-
quently withdrawn by representatives of the General Counsel in the
course of hearing before a Trial Examiner. Accordingly, we find the
Petitioner's exceptions to that portion of the Regional Director's re-
port on challenged ballots sustaining the challenges to the ballot of
these seven dischargees without merit.4
The ballots of three other employees were challenged by ,the Peti-
tioner on the ground the employees were not included in the unit
found appropriate in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election
in this case. The Board found appropriate a unit consisting of "all
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's North
Hollywood, California, plant, excluding watchmen, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors 'as defined in the Act." The
Petitioner, in its exceptions, alleges only that these three employees
are assigned to the shipping and packing department and are not
production and maintenance employees. The Regional Director
recommended that the challenges to these ballots be overruled on the
ground the employees were a constituent part of the unit found ap-
propriate. Accepting the Petitioner's allegations in full, the Board
nevertheless finds that the shipping and packing employees at the
Employer's plant, by their duties and working conditions, were at
all times, included in the unit found appropriate for bargaining. Ac-
2 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
[Members Houston,-Reynolds-and Murdock].
2 Voters Faucett, Herbst, Reynolds, V. Sanders, G. Sanders, Kober, and Plainer.
' See Association of Motion Picture Producers, et al ., 88 NLRB 521 ; 90 NLRB No. 296.
WILLIAM S. FRAZIER 679'
cordingly, we find no merit in the Petitioner's exceptions to-the Re--
gional Director's findings concerning the ballots of these employees.
The Regional Director further recommended that the challenges
by the Petitioner to one other ballot be overruled and to one ballot be-
sustained. The Petitioner challenged the ballot of employee Mont-
singer on the ground he is a sales agent of the Employer and of em--
ployee William Frazier, Jr., on the ground he is a son of the Em-
ployer. The Regional Director overruled the challenge as to em-
ployee Montsinger and sustained the challenge as to employee Frazier.
As the Petitioner did not except to either of these recommendations,,
the Board adopts the findings of the Regional Director as to these
ballots.
The Petitioner also challenged the ballot of employee Rodriguez on
the ground that he is a supervisor in the shipping 'and packing de-
partment. The Regional Director found that Rodriguez does not have-
authority to hire or discharge employees and recommended that his,
ballot be opened and counted. The Petitioner, in its exceptions, con-
tests the Regional Director's conclusions as to this employee. As the
other challenged ballots we shall order opened and counted may be
determinative of Petitioner's majority status, the Board, at this time,,
will not rule upon the issue of Rodriguez' supervisory authority.
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that the Petitioner's ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report on challenged ballots do
not raise substantial or material issues of fact excluding the status of
employee Rodriguez.I Accordingly, the Board adopts the recom-
mendations of the report on challenged ballots as modified herein,.
overrules the challenges to the ballots of employees Montsinger, Banks,
Brubaker, and L. Jones, and sustains the challenges to the ballots of'
Faucett, Herbst, Reynolds, V. Sanders, G. Sanders, Kober, Plainer,
and W. Frazier, Jr. Inasmuch as the four ballots, challenges to which,-
are overruled, may determine the results of the election, we shall di-
rect that they be opened and counted and that the ballot of employee
Rodriguez be impounded pending that action.
Direction
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region shall impound the ballot of
Raymond Rodriguez
and within ten (10) days from the date of this direction, shall open,
and count ballots cast by
A. W. Montsinger Joan Banks
Merle`Brubaker - Leroy-Jones
6 As no bearing is necessary for the resolution of the legal issues we have decided herein,
the Petitioner 's request for formal hearing is denied.
.680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and thereafter prepare and serve upon the parties to this proceeding
a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the count of such
challenged ballots.
JIARVEY STOLLER D/B/A RICHLAND LAUNDJIY & DRY CLEANERS and
LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL 197 AFFILIATED WITH
LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL and IRENE HALLEN-
BECK, FLORENCE JONSON, NOLAND TEAL, DONALD DONAFIUE, ALMA
DONAHUE. Cases Nos. 19-CA-302, 19-CA-303, 19-CA-305, 19-
CA-307, 19-CA-308, 19-CB-103, 19-CB-104, 19-CB-106, 19-CB-
110, and 19-CB-111. March 6, 1951
Decision and Order
On November 6, 1950, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
-the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re-
spondents filed joint exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
-supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as noted below.
1. The Board agrees with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent'
-Employer's operations affect commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that the Board should exercise jurisdiction in this case. Our
decision that it would best effectuate the purposes of the Act to
exercise jurisdiction here is based solely on the Respondent Em-
ployer's relationship to the national defense effort, arising from his
license to do business on a United States reservation devoted to atomic
energy. The Board does not rely on the Trial Examiner's finding of
fact that the Respondent Employer's business is an essential element
in the life of a community which has been established as part of the
- national defense program. In the Board's opinion, any employer
doing business on such an atomic energy reservation, whether or not
his business is absolutely essential to the inhabitants of the commu-
- pity, is nonetheless so identified with the Government's national de-
fense program as to warrant the full exercise of the Board's power
to assert the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Act.
93 NLRB No. 102.