Hagen Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1321 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

HAGEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1321
work permit," issued by the Department of Public Education of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to permit minors under 16 years
of age to work for a limited period during the school vacation season.
By the terms of the limited work permit, Beattie could not be employed
by the Employer after the expiration of the recent school vacation
season. Beattie was born October 16, 1937, and, therefore, could-under
no circumstances be permanently employed until the fall of 1953, when
he attains his sixteenth year. In its exceptions, the Employer asserts
that permanent employment is assured to Beattie "when he would be
able to resume work for the Company." In the special circumstances
of this case, we deem the possibility of Beattie becoming a permament
or regular employee too remote and too indefinite to justify his partic-
ipating in an election to select representatives to bargain for the
immediate future. Accordingly, we adopt the recommendation of the
Regional Director and sustain the challenge to the ballot of Michael
Beattie.
As the Petitioner has received a majority of the votes cast in the
election, we shall certify it as the bargaining representative of all
employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Local #35, United Paperworkers of
America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the
factory employees at the Employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
plant, excluding lithographic employees, office clerical employees, and
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 said organization is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
HAGEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-1506.
I
September 30, 19513
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on July 24,1952,1 an election by secret ballot was held on August
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
100 NLRB No. 222.
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eighteenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in
the unit found appropriate in the decision. At the close of the
election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots showing
that of approximately 23 eligible voters, 22 cast ballots,, of which 11
were for the Petitioner, 10 were against the Petitioner, and 1 was
challenged.
On August 18, 1952, the Employer filed objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director investigated the
challenged ballot and the objections. On August 25, 1952, the Re-
gional Director issued and served upon the parties his report on
objections and challenged ballot, in which he recommended that the
challenge be sustained, that the objections be overruled, and that the
Petitioner be certified. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report and to his recommendations.
In his report, the Regional Director sustained the Petitioner's
challenge of Willis Krueger's ballot on the ground that he was a super-
visor. Like the Board, the Regional Director found that Krueger
responsibly directs approximately 12 employees in assembly operations
and has the authority to discipline them. Contrary to the Employer's
contention, the issue as to Krueger's supervisory status was fully liti-
gated at the representation hearing and we hereby reject the Employ-
er's request to adduce additional evidence on this issue, as no adequate
excuse has been shown for the Employer's failure to proffer such evi-
dence at the recently conducted hearing? In view of the foregoing,
we find no merit in the Employer's contention that Krueger is not a
supervisor.
We also agree with the Regional Director's finding that Ila Moede
was not improperly denied an opportunity to cast her ballot because
of the refusal of a Board agent conducting the election to go to a
hospital where this employee was confined for observation for a con-
tagious disease. The Employer's exception to this finding is hereby
rejected, as it is well settled that only employees who present them-
selves in person at the polls shall be eligible to vote in manually con-
ducted elections 3
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's exceptions to the Re-
gional Director's report on objections and challenged ballot do not
raise material issues with respect to the conduct of the election. As
the tally of ballots shows that a majority of the valid votes cast were
for the Petitioner, we shall certify it as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
' See Greenville Cotton Oil Company, 92 NLRB 1033, 1041.
3 A rthur J . Wiltse, d/b/a The Ann Arbor Press, 88 NLRB 391, 395
CENTURY CEMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1323
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists,
AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees
at the Employer's Baraboo, Wisconsin, plant, in the unit found to be
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4 of the Decision and Direction
of Election, as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said or-
ganization is the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and STYLES took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
CENTURY CEMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and UNITED CE-
MENT, LIME & GYPSUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 129,
AFL. Case No. 2-CA-1918. October 1, 1952
Decision and Order
On January 28, 1952, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed . The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the following minor exceptions, additions, and modi-
fications : 2
I 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, Murdock , and Styles].
m We note and correct the following minor inaccuracies in the findings of the Trial
Examiner' s Intermediate Report , none of which affects the validity of his ultimate conclu-
sions nor our concurrence therein : (1) The date on page 1330, line 18, is April 24, 1951, and
not April 24, 1950; ( 2) the number on page 1335 , line 13, is 13 and not 15; (3) the date on
page 1336 , line 7, and on page 1340 , line 7, is April 1, 1951 , rather than April 1, 1950; (4i)
Section 8 ( a) (5) (1) on page 1336 , line 7, should read Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) ; (5) the
date on page 1336 , Section C , line 12, is September 27 and not September 21 ; (6) Section
8 (a) (3) (1 ) on page 1338 , line 37, should read Section 8 (a) (3) and (1).
100 NLRB No. 223.