Brunswick Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 67 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

BURKE DIV. OF BRUNSWICK CORP.
Burke Division of Brunswick Corporation and Shop,
Mill and Industrial Local Union 2848, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 16-RC-4981
June 26, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on September 27, 1968, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 16, among the employees in the unit
described below. At the conclusion of the election,
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots
which showed that of approximately 51 eligible
voters, 52 cast ballots, of which 26 were for the
Petitioner, 25 were against the Petitioner, and 1 was
challenged. The challenged ballot is sufficient in
number to affect the results of the election. No
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election were filed by either party.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation and, on November 5,
1968, issued and duly served upon the parties his
report on challenged ballot, in which he
recommended that the challenge to the ballot of
Carl Shelton be sustained, and that the Petitioner be
certified as the collective-bargaining representative
of the employees of the Employer in the appropriate
unit. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's report and a
supporting brief.
On January 30, 1969, the Board issued an order
remanding proceeding to Regional Director for
hearing for the purpose of securing record evidence
to resolve the issues raised by the Employer's
exceptions, in which the Employer contended, inter
alia, that the transfer of Shelton did not affect his
community of interest with employees in the
appropriate unit in view of the temporary nature of
his transfer. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held
on February 20, 1969, before Hearing Officer T.
Lowry Whittaker. The Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. In his report, the Hearing
Officer recommended that the Board sustain the
challenge to the ballot of Shelton, and that the
Petitioner be certified as the collective-bargaining
representative. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Report and a
supporting brief, and the Petitioner filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
67
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Union is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of the employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(l)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
Included: All production employees, including
shipping and receiving employees while employed
at the Employer's plants located at 5140 N.
Westmoreland and 125 Cole Street, Dallas,
Texas.
Excluded: All other employees, office clerical
employees, guards, watchmen, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act
as amended.
5. The Board has considered the report of
Hearing Officer upon challenged ballot, the
Employer's exceptions and brief, the Petitioner's
brief, and the entire record in this case, and makes
the following findings.
The Hearing Officer's report finds that the
employee in dispute, Carl Shelton, was a clerical
employee in the material control department on the
eligibility date and on the date of the election, and
was therefore excluded from the appropriate unit
under the phrase used in the unit description which
excluded "all other employees." For the reasons set
forth below, we find merit in the Employer's
exceptions.
Shelton was hired into the wood finishing shop, a
part of the appropriate unit , on August 6. On
August 13, at the Employer's request, he transferred
to the material control department, where he "was
to help catch up on past-due orders." The
supervisors of both of these departments testified
that Shelton was told at the time of his transfer that
it would be temporary. In addition, the Employer
introduced personnel action forms regarding this
transfer, which indicated that the transfer was
temporary. Shelton testified that he did not recall
being told that his transfer was temporary. During
the time he worked in the material control
department, Shelton was primarily involved in work
designed to eliminate the past-due orders, which was
the stated reason for his transfer. In addition, he
also did a few odd jobs which required work within
the unit. On November 14, at the time of his
transfer from the material control department back
to a job within the appropriate unit, although not to
the job which he had performed prior to his
transfer, the number of past-due orders had been
substantially reduced. No testimony was introduced
177 NLRB No. 2
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to controvert the testimony that Shelton was told
the transfer would be temporary, nor was there
evidence to indicate that the personnel action forms
were in error.
In view of the above, we find that on the
eligibility date and the date of the election, Carl
Shelton was in the appropriate unit and was eligible
to vote in the election, since his assignment to the
material control department was temporary, and it
was reasonably expected that he would resume
full-time duties in the unit. Accordingly, we shall
direct that the Regional Director open and count the
challenged ballot of Carl Shelton, and prepare and
cause to be served upon the parties a revised tally of
ballots.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director
for Region 16 shall, pursuant to the Rules and
Regulations of the Board , within 10 days from the
date of this Decision , open and count the ballot of
Carl Shelton, and prepare and cause to be served
upon the parties a revised tally of ballots , including
therein the count of the above -mentioned ballot, and
issue the appropriate certification.
j