Douglas Eaton Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 192 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. RAY MITCHELL, MORTON R. COHEN, MILTON A. COHEN, ARTHUR
COHEN, LIBBY COHEN, MYRON APPLEBAUM AND SAMUEL A. COHEN,
D/B/A DOUGLAS EATON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1 and UPHOL-
STERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 35-RC-909. September 30, 1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry Berns, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find in substantial agreement with the parties that the fol-
lowing employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in
Eaton, Indiana, including shipping and receiving clerks, and in-
spector, but including office clerical employees, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Although the parties agreed to the exclusion of over-the-road
drivers, we are making no finding concerning their unit placement as
the Employer does not have this, classification on its payroll. The
Intervenor would exclude as a supervisor, William White, who works
along with the employees in the upholstery department. In the ab-
sence of the regular department head, White is in charge of the
department about 2 percent of his time and may make employee
assignments but he has no authority to hire or discharge employees
or to recommend such action. In view of the foregoing, we shall
include White in the unit.3
5. The Intervenor contended at the hearing that about 12 employees
laid off in 1952 should be eligible to vote. The Employer asserted
that these employees had little prospect of reemployment because of
a change in its upholstery operations. A very long time has elapsed
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
2 Local No. 122, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its
contractual interest.
3 Puerto Rico Glass Corporation, 101 NLRB 1347, 1348
110 NLRB No. 26.
REPCAL BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 193
since the layoff of these employees, and the record before us affords
no basis supporting the Petitioner's assertion that all these employees
now have a reasonable expectancy of future employment. Adminis-
tratively, we have been advised that 2 of those former employees have
recently been rehired and that 2 others may later be recalled. Even
assuming that these informally reported facts, upon which none of
the parties have had opportunity to comment, were properly estab-
lished, they do not disclose any real expectancy of reemployment for
the remaining employees who were laid off 2 years ago.
Accordingly, we find that the laid-off employees are not eligible
to vote in the election unless they have been recalled and satisfy our
customary eligibility requirement .4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
+Member Murdock believes , contrary to any suggestion or implication of the majority
that it may be improper to do so, that the Board is clearly entitled to utilize herein infor-
mation of the character administratively supplied by the Regional Director . He further
points out that the issue is not as the majority suggests whether this information is
sufficient to show that "all " of the laid -off employees have a reasonable expectancy of
future employment . It is sufficient that the information relating to the rehiring of these
employees indicates that at least some of the laid-off employees have a reasonable expect-
ancy of employment . Accordingly , as the Board cannot now tell which of them have such
expectancy , Member Murdock would permit all laid -off employees to vote subject to
challenge.
REPCAL BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and REPCAL EMPLOYEES.
ASSOCIATION , PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-3465. October 4, 1954
Supplemental Decision and Order
On July 23,1954, pursuant to the Board's Decision, Order and Direc-
tion of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted, under
the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region. Upon conclusion of the balloting, a tally of
ballots was issued and served upon the parties. The tally showed
that, of approximately 275 eligible voters, 243 voted, with 1 being chal-
lenged. There were 88 votes cast for UAW-CIO, 76 for Local 700,_
International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Independent,.
(here called the Smelter Workers), 61 for Repeal Employees Associa-
tion, Independent, 10 for Metal Trades Council, AFL, and 7 votes
cast against the labor organizations.
The Repeal Employees Association and the Metal Trades Council,
AFL, filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the
1 109 NLRB 4.
110 NLRB No. 24.
338207-55-vol. 110 14