Oliver Machinery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 731 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY 731
troverted facts, the Board finds that the six alleged buyers are neither
supervisors nor managerial employees. Accordingly, we shall in-
chicle them in the unit.
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its de-
partment store and warehouse in Savannah, Georgia, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All selling' and nonselling employees including bookkeepers,
janitors, and the warehouseman, but excluding employees of the
leased departments, the general manager, assistant manager, first
floor supervisor, basement supervisor, and other supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Including Rosa Daughtry, Maiie James , Vannie Brigham , Effie Bland, Lillian Walton,
and Mary Windelschaefer.
OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY and UNITED DAIRY, BAKERY AND FOOD
WORKERS LOCAL No. 386, AND R ETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT
STORE UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1066. Marc1
8, 1951
Decision and Direction
On December 15, 1950, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election executed on November 29, 1950, by the Employer,
the Petitioner, and Local No. 911, United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (UE), herein called the Intervenor, an election
by secret ballot was held in a unit of all employees of the Employer's
label printing department, at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, ex-
cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as delined in the Act. Upon the conclusion of the election,
a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that, of the
50 ballots cast, 24 were for the Petitioner, none were for the Inter-
venor, 21 were against participating labor organizations, and 5 were
challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed
within the time provided therefor.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re-
sults of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on January
12, 1951, issued and served upon the parties a report on challenged
ballots. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that the
93 NLRB No. 107.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
challenges to the ballots of James Blok, William D. Lawton, Lawrence
Jennings, and Francis Vadeboncoeur be overruled, and that those
ballots be opened and counted. He further recommended that the
challenge to the ballot of Carl Sommer be sustained. Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's recom-
mendations with respect to the ballots of Blok, Lawton, Jennings,
and Vadeboncoeur, and the Employer filed timely exceptions, and a
supporting brief, to the Regional Director's recommendation as to
the ballot of Sommer.
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].
James Blole and Francis Vadeboncoeui°.-The Regional Director
found that both these employees were plant clericals and that, as the
stipulated unit excluded office clerical employees and not plant cleri-
cals, these employees were entitled to vote. The Petitioner contends,
in substance, that it intended to exclude both office and plant clericals,
as demonstrated by its original petition herein which excluded "office
workers" and "clerical help," and that the stipulation failed properly
to reflect its intention in this respect. However, the stipulation limit-
ing the exclusion to "office clerical employees" was duly executed by
all the parties, including the Petitioner, and no persuasive reason has
been advanced for holding that such agreement is not binding upon
the Petitioner. Accordingly, we shall adopt the Regional Director's
recommendation that the challenges to the ballots of Blok and Vade-
boncoeur be overruled.'
Willian D. Lawton 'and Lawrence Jennings.-The Petitioner con-
tends that both these individuals are supervisors and therefore are
not entitled to vote. The facts are substantially undisputed. Law-
ton spends at least 25 percent of his time operating coating machines
in the adhesive coating section, and devotes the remainder of his time
to such duties as setting up machines, observing the temperature, coat-
ing, paper and scrap, weighing samples, unloading supplies, preparing
inventories and other reports, and serving as general maintenance and
i elief man. He routinely directs the work of approximately four
employees in this section, receiving about 30 to 60 cents per hour more
than the latter employees, and transmits orders from the superintend-
ent who has immediate charge of the section. Jennings spends all his
time performing maintenance work on printing presses. He is as-
sisted in his work by two helpers, and receives about 18 to 35 cents
per hour more than his helpers. Although the Petitioner asserts that
Lawton and Jennings are "considered supervisors" by the employees
' Cf. Merrimac Hat Corporation, 85 NLRB 329, 344.
DITTO PRESS, INC. 733
in their respective sections, it does not appear that either of them pos-
sesses or exercises supervisory authority. We find, as did the Regional
Director, that Lawton and Jennings are not supervisors as defined
in the Act and shall overrule the challenges to their ballots.2
Carl Sommer.-The Regional Director, upon the basis of his in-
vestigation, found that Sommer is a supervisor and recommended that
the challenge to his ballot be sustained. In its exceptions, the Em-
ployer raises material issues of fact as to Sommer's supervisory status-
We find it unnecessary at this time to order a hearing to resolve these
issues of fact, as a conclusive election may result from the opening and
counting of the four challenged ballots found valid hereinabove.3
Direction
IT IS iIEREBl DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain
representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Oliver
Machinery Coinpany, Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Regional Direc-
tor for the Seventh Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date
of this Direction;pen and count the ballots of James Blok, Francis
Vadeboncoeur, William D. Lawton, and Lawrence Jennings, and
thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a supple-
mental tally of ballots, including therein the count of the challenged
ballots.
Cf Republic Steel Corporation, Canton Plant, Central Alloy District, 91 NLRB 904 ,
8t,cmel Bios Manufacturing Company, 89 NLRB 1404; and Gay Games, Inc, 88
NLRB 250
3 S CC S Corrugated Paper Maclnneig Co , Inc, 89 NLRB 1363 ; Leedon. Webbing Conmpany,
81 NLRB 216
DITTO PRESS , INC.' and CINCINNATI PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSIST-
ANTS' LOCAL UNION No. 11, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN &
ASSISTANTS ' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
DITTO PRESS , INC. and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA
LOCAL No. 8, AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA , C. I. 0.,
PETITIONER . Cases Nos.,"-RC-1010 and 9 RC-1018: March 8, 1051
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Alan A. Bruckner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
The name-of the Emplo yei appears as corrected at the hearing.
93 NLRB No 113