The Griscom-Russell Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 420 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE GRISCOM-R USSELL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL #72 (AFL),
PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2250
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 15,1947
On October 9, 1946, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Board herein on September 10, 1946,1 an election by
secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio). 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 there were approximately 95 eligible voters,
of whom 44 voted for the Petitioner, 38 voted against the Petitioner,
and 12 voted under challenge.
Inasmuch as the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election, the Regional Director investigated the
challenges and, on December 5, 1946, issued and duly served upon the
parties his Report on Challenged Ballots recommending that the chal-
lenges to the ballots of Charles A. Koch, Donald R. Ickes, Thomas E.
Eisenbrei, and Grace Harrold be sustained and that the challenges to
the ballots of Gordon Youngblood, Catherine Glutting, Edith Floun-
ders, Samuel E. Fetter, Richard C. Wilson, William Wagner,2 Victor
Fischer and Paul Smith be overruled. On December 23, 1946, the Peti-
tioner filed Exceptions to so much of the Regional Director's Report as
recommended that the challenges to the ballots of William Wagner,
Victor Fischer, Catherine Glutting, Edith Flounders, Samuel E.
Fetter, Paul Smith, and Richard C. Wilson be overruled and their
ballots opened and counted. On January 6, 1947, the Board, after
considering the Report on Challenged Ballots and the Exceptions
thereto, ordered that a hearing be held on the issues thus raised. Pur-
suant to this order, a hearing was held on February 6, 1947, at Mas-
1 70 N. L. R B. 1299.
2 Wagner was erroneously referred to in the Regional Director 's Report as "Wayne
73 N. L. R. B., No. 82.
420
THE GRISCOM-RUSSELL COMPANY 421
sillon, Ohio, before Louis S. Belkin, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
SUPPLE_IIENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
In his Report on Challenged Ballots, the Regional Director recom-
mended that the challenges to the ballots of Charles A. Koch, Donald R.
Ickes, Thomas E. Eisenbrei, and Grace Harrold be sustained, and that
the challenge to the ballot of Gordon Youngblood be overruled.
Inasmuch as none of the parties excepted to the foregoing recom-
mendations, we adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director
and we hereby sustain the challenges to the ballots of Charles A. Koch,
Donald R. Ickes, Thomas E. Eisenbrei, and Grace Harrold and over-
rule the challenge to the ballot of Gordon Youngblood.
The evidence as to the remaining challenged voters will be discussed
hereinafter seriatim:
William Wagner and Victor Fischer: The Petitioner challenged
these employees on the ground that they are test engineers and, there-
fore, not within the unit. Although the Employer asserts that the
work being done by these employees does not require an engineering
education, the record reveals that both these employees are graduate
engineers. Approximately 35 percent of their time is spent in testing
models of equipment built by the Employer. An additional 15 percent
is spent in supervising the setting up of equipment for test purposes.
The remainder of their time is spent in making preliminary calcula-
tions of the result of the tests. The data obtained is transmitted to the
Engineering Department in New York and is used by designers as an
aid in designing new equipment. These employees have a separate
office where the tests are conducted. It is significant that, although
they have drafting room clock numbers, they are not under the same
supervision as the employees in the drafting room but are under the
direct supervision of the Superintendent of the plant. It is clear that
these two employees are engaged in a form of research. In view of
their educational background and the nature of their work, we find
that Wagner and Fischer are not included in the unit. Accordingly,
we hereby sustain the challenges to their ballots.
Catherine Glutting: The Petitioner challenged this employee on the
ground that she was the personal secretary of Vice-President Nelson
who directs the Massillon plant of the Employer and as such is ex-
cluded from the unit. This employee spends approximately 10 percent
of her time doing secretarial work for Nelson, and the remainder of her
time in performing clerical duties in the order department to which
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she is regularly assigned. Nelson testified without contradiction that
he personally handles all confidential matters relating to labor rela-
tions either by writing letters in longhand, by telephoning, or by per-
sonal conferences. He maintains no confidential files at the office. All
such confidential files are kept at his home and this employee does not
have access thereto. We find that Glutting is not a private secretary
within the meaning of the exclusion in our unit finding. We deem
her to be included in the unit and, therefore, we hereby overrule the
challenge to her ballot.
Edith Flounders: This employee was challenged by the Petitioner on
the ground that she is private secretary to the personnel manager. The
uncontradicted testimony shows that Flounders types applications for
employment and files them, and performs clerical duties for Superin-
tendent Miller and Assistant Superintendent Busse, as well as for the
personnel manager, but is not a private secretary to any of them. She
has no authority to interview applicants for employment and has no
access to confidential matters concerning labor relations inasmuch as
such matters are not handled in the office of the personnel manager.
We find that she is not a private secretary within the meaning of the
exclusion in our unit finding. We deem her to be included in the unit
and, therefore, overrule the challenge to her ballot.
Samuel E. Fetter: The Petitioner challenged the ballot of this em-
ployee on the ground that he is a supervisor and, therefore, excluded
from the unit. Fetter has been employed by the Employer for ap-
proximately 30 years. His duties consist of writing bills of material
from information found in drawings prepared by others. There is
testimony to the effect that some of the employees consider him to
be a supervisor, but no evidence was adduced to show that he has
supervisory authority within the Board's customary definition. We
find that he is not a supervisor and deem him to be included in the
unit. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the challenge to his ballot.
Richard C. Wilson: The Petitioner challenged the ballot of this
employee on the ground that he is a supervisor and, therefore, in-
eligible to vote. Wilson is an assistant to the works manager, the
assistant works manager, and the purchasing agent. He schedules
orders, spends approximately 50 percent of his time running'a mimeo-
graph machine, and assists the purchasing agent, but he is without
effective authority to recommend the change in status of any employee
and has never done so. During the War, in the absence of the pur-
chasing agent, Wilson acted as temporary purchasing agent, but
upon the return of the purchasing agent from service, Wilson re-
sumed his present duties as outlined above. The purchasing agent
returned to the employ of the Employer sometime before the election
herein. We find that Wilson is not a supervisor within the Board's
THE GRISCOM-RUSSELL COMPANY 423
customary definition. We consider him included in the unit and,
therefore, overrule the challenge to his ballot.
Paul Smith: The Petitioner challenged this employee on the ground
that he is a supervisor and, therefore, ineligible to participate in the
election. The record shows that Smith is the assistant to the plant
engineer and runs errands, does clerical work, acts as chaperone for
visitors, and checks the fire-protection system. He is in charge of the
fire brigade in the plant. The Employer contends that he is not a
supervisor and has no authority effectively to recommend the change
in status of any employee. However, there is evidence that Smith
threatened to fire employees for nonperformance of their duties, or-
dered them back to work, and had given them orders. In addition,
the chairman of the shop grievance committee testified, without con-
tradiction, that he had consulted with Smith on grievances and that
it was the policy of the Employer and of the labor organization repre-
senting production and maintenance employees to have employees'
grievances discussed only with supervisors. We find that Paul Smith
is a supervisory employee and, therefore, was ineligible to participate in
the election. We hereby sustain the challenge to his ballot.
As previously stated, 44 votes were cast for the Petitioner, 38 against
and 12 votes were challenged. We have sustained the challenges to
7 of these challenged ballots and overruled the challenges to the re-
mainder. These 5 unopened but valid ballots cannot affect the results
of the election. Accordingly, we shall not direct that these ballots
be opened and counted. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has secured a
majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT Is HERBY CERTIFIED that Office Employees International Union,
Local #72, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority
of the employees of the above-named Employer, in the unit heretofore
found by the Board to be appropriate, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9
(a) of the Act the said organization is the exclusive representative
of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
4