Acme Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 608 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ACME ENGINEERING COMPANY and UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-
3732. April 29, 1954
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
On January 22, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region among employees in the
agreed appropriate unit. Following the election, the Regional
Director served on the parties a tally of ballots, which showed
that of approximately 22 eligible voters, 8 cast votes for, and
11 against, the Petitioner; and 10 ballots were challenged.
Because the challenges were sufficient in number to affect
the result of the election, the Regional Director investigated
the challenges and, on March 11, 1954, issued and duly served
on the parties his report on challenges, making no finding with
respect to the validity of one challenge and recommending
that the Board sustain all other challenges but one, and certify
the results of the election. On March 19, 1954, the Petitioner
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the
challenges, the Regional Director's report on challenges, and
the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and upon the entire record
in this case, 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 Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning repre-
sentation of certain employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's casting machining
plant at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. As indicated above, the consent election was conducted
among employees in the agreed appropriate unit.
Challenges to the Ballots of Employees Laid Off
Of the 10 challenged ballots, the 8 ballots cast by Hyacinth
Zimek, 1 Walter Slogaski, Walter Brodzek, Erwin Parafiniuk,
1 Because of illness, Zimek did not report for work between November 23 and December
12, when he was discharged.
108 NLRB No. 99.
ACME ENGINEERING COMPANY 609
Gyle Stienbring , Lawrence Giebel, Robert Lempke, and
Valentine Rosewicz ,1 respectively , were challenged by the
Board ' s agent in charge of the election because the names of
these voters were not on the eligibility list. The Regional
Director finds that these 8 voters were released in December
1953 , when the Employer discontinued the second shiftfor lack
of work due to substantial curtailment in business operations;
and that, at the time of the election , there was no prospect
of any expansion of work force except to fill such vacancies
as might occur . Since the released employees had no reasonable
expectation of employment at the time of the election, the
Regional Director recommended that the challenges to their
ballots be sustained . The Petitioner excepts to his findings and
recommendations.
Although it may be that some employees who were laid off
in December were told , or believed , that the Employer's dis-
continuance of the second shift may be temporary , it clearly
appears that, at the time of the election , there were no pros-
pects for an early resumption of the second shift. The plant
was then operating at full capacity on one shift . The fact that
employees working on the one shift did some overtime work
does not , in itself, as the Petitioner suggests , indicate that
the Employer would be warranted in reestablishing a second
shift . We, therefore , adopt the Regional Director ' s findings
and recommendations , and we sustain the challenges to the
ballots of the eight released voters listed above.
The Alleged Supervisors
The Petitioner challenged the ballots of Sylvester Balcerzak
and Joseph Schertzel on the ground that they were supervisors,
and therefore not within the unit.
Balcerzak served as foreman on the second shift. When
the Employer discontinued the second shift in December,
Balcerzak became a machine operator , and was so classified
on the eligibility date . The Petitioner presented no evidence
that Balcerzak had exercised any supervisory authority from
the day when he was transferred from foreman to machine
operator . Because as a machine operator , Balcerzak was an
eligible voter, the Regional Director recommended that the
challenge to his ballot be overruled , and we adopt his findings.
Schertzel , an hourly paid employee , does inspection andlay-
out work . He was introduced to employees on the shift as as-
sistant foreman. The Employer alleges that he has no authority
to hire or discharge , reward, or discipline other employees
or responsibly direct them, recommend them, or adjust their
2 Rosewicz was hired as a tool grinder when the Employer established its second shift.
This work had previously been done on contract outside the plant . When the operation of the
second shift was discontinued , the Employer, for convenience and economy , resumed its
former practice and discharged Rosewicz.
339676 0 - 55 - 40
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
grievances. Schertzel may discuss with employees mistakes
in work discovered in inspection and give corrective measures
to be taken if minor adjustments are required. Schertzel on
infrequent occasions substitutes for the regular foreman, when
the latter is absent. The Regional Director made no recommen-
dation with respect to Schertzel's status.
Because the counting of the ballots of Balcerzak and
Schertzel, even if both were valid, would not affect the results
of the election, we shall make no finding as to the status and
eligibility of Schertzel, and we direct that the ballot of
Balcerzak remain uncounted.
Because the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the
valid ballots cast, we certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots
was not cast for United Automobile Workers of America, AFL,
and that the said labor organization is therefore not the exclu-
sive representative of employees in the appropriate unit.]
THE GRUEN WATCH COMPANY, THE GRUEN NATIONAL
WATCH CASE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
UAW-CIO, Petitioner and METAL POLISHERS, BUFFERS,
PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F.
OF L., LOCAL NO. 68. Cases Nos. 9-RC-1445 and 9-RC-
1359. April 29, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the Board,' which set
aside the election of February 1, 1952, a now election was
held under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region on Ma ch 20, 1953, among the
employees in voting unit 1.2 The results of the election as
shown by the tally of ballots, were that of approximately 27
eligible voters, 26 cast valid ballots, of which 21 were for
the International Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called
the IAM, and 5 were against participating labor organizations.
There was 1 challenged ballot.
On March 27, 1953, the Employer filed timely objections to
the election in voting unit 1 contending that employees therein
were restrained and coerced by (1) threats of harm if they
1103 NLRB 3.
Z An election was also held for voting unit 3 in connection with which the Board issued
a certification of results of election.
108 NLRB No. 104.