F. C. Castelli Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 411 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

F. C. CASTELLI COMPANY 411
F. C. CASTELLI COMPANY, PETITIONER and LOCAL-155, UNITED ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1 and LOCAL 123,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORK-
ERS, C10.2 Case No. 4-RM-114. March 9, 1953
Supplemental Decision and Amended Direction of Election
On October 1, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding .3 The direction of election,
as subsequently amended on November 17, 1952, required the election
to be held within 90 days of October 1, 1952. Thereafter, the Board
was administratively advised that only a small minority of the pre-
vious plant complement was then employed and that, because the
Employer's business may be seasonal in nature, a further postpone-
ment of the election might be necessary.
As there was no evidence in the record upon this matter, the Board
ordered on December 8, 1952, that the record be reopened and re-
manded the proceeding to the Regional Director of the Fourth Region
for further hearing on the question of the seasonal nature of the
Employer's business, and ordered further indefinite postponement of
the election. The hearing was duly held before Julius Topol, hearing
officer, on January 13, 1953. All parties appeared and participated.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board I makes the following
supplemental findings of fact :
The primary issue presented at this stage of the proceeding is the
determination of the proper time for holding the election previously
directed but subsequently postponed.
The Employer is a manufacturer of toys. Its operations have in the
past followed a seasonal cycle, which has been reflected in changes in
the size of the work force .,5 At the hearing the Employer stated that
if the hiring rate in 1953 followed the usual pattern, the plant comple-
ment would increase gradually from 27 employees in January to 75 in
March, 140 in June, and would reach a peak of 160 to 190 in Septem-
Herein called UE
Herein called IUE.
a Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
4 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
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
5In referring to the Employer 's employees in this Decision, we make reference only to
those employees in the unit found appropriate in our original Decision in this proceeding.
103 NLRB No. 49.
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber and October, with a sharp drop in November and December. How-
ever, the Employer also stated that it is planning about July 1953 to
eliminate the foregoing fluctuations and to stabilize employment by
maintaining a crew of 140 to 165 employees during 11 months of each
year.
It appears from the record that 75 employees is the minimum com-
plement required by the Employer for an assembly line operation,
utilizing all categories of skills possessed by the employees in the unit.
It is expected, as already stated, that a work force of 75 employees will
in the current year be achieved in March.
The record shows further that former employees are given prefer-
ence in rehiring.e In the past, approximately 80 former employees
have returned each year out of a total peak complement of 190 em-
ployees. The Employer predicts, however, on the basis of informal
inquiries, that by midsummer 1953 approximately 125 former em-
ployees will have returned 7 In view of the foregoing, we find that
former employees laid off for not more than 1 year, who have not been
rehired at the time of the election and who possess rehiring seniority,
have a reasonable expectation of reemployment and are in effect only
temporarily laid off. Consequently, we find that they are entitled to
participate in the selection of the bargaining agent unless they have
obtained permanent employment elsewhere, have expressed their pres-
ent intention not to return, or have failed to respond to an offer of
reemployment by the Employer."
It is the position of the Employer that the election should be held
at the earliest possible date, commensurate with affording a substantial
number of employees the opportunity to vote for a bargaining agent.
IUE likewise seeks an early election at such time as there is a repre-
sentative number of employees in the plant. UE contends the election
should be held when the work force is stabilized at approximately 150
employees.
It is the Board's usual practice in cases involving seasonal opera-
tions to hold an election at or near the seasonal peak period, which
in the instant case would not occur until next September. However,
in view of the Employer's expectation of stabilizing employment
during the current year, and the large proportion of the peak plant
complement that will be eligible to vote as temporarily laid-off em-
a Preferential rehiring for former seasonal employees who have been laid off for not
more than 1 year is provided for in the Employer's contracts with U E. The Employer,
moreover, stated at the hearing that, even absent a contract provision, it would follow
such a rehiring policy.
4 Of the 27 employees in the plant at the time of the hearing , 26 were old employees.
8 San Joaquin Compress and Warehouse Company, 95 NLRB 2.79.
HERPOLSHEIMER COMPANY 413
ployees, whatever the date of the election, we will direct an election in
this proceeding on a date when a representative number of employees
are determined by the Regional Director to be actually employed
by the Employer e
[Text of Amended Direction of Election omitted from publica-
tion in this volume.]
9 See: Evan Hall Sugar Cooperative, Inc., 9,7 NLRB, 1258; San Joaquin Compress and
Warehouse Company, supra.
HERPOLSHEIMER COMPANY and RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1682,
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 7-110-1863. March 9,1953
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election
On October 9, 1952, the Board 1 issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in the above-entitled proceeding.2 Thereafter, and pur-
suant thereto, the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, on No-
vember 3, 1952, conducted an election by secret ballot among certain
employees of the Employer. 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 approximately 422 eligible voters, 405 cast
ballots, of which 125 were for the Petitioner and 253 were against
the Petitioner. There were 27 challenged ballots. The challenges
are not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election.
Thereafter, on November 6, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objec-
tions to the conduct of the election, alleging that (1) the Employer
by the sending of a letter to all employees intimidated and coerced
the employees; (2) the Employer relegated certain employees to reg-
ular part-time status and increased their wages after the filing of
the petition; and (3) the Employer included a number of ineligible
persons on the eligibility list.
Thereafter, on January 21, 1953, the Regional Director, having
conducted an investigation, issued his report on objections. In his
report, the Regional Director found no merit in the Petitioner's
objections of November 6, 1952, and recommended that they be over-
ruled. No exceptions have been filed by either of the parties to the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations with respect to
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3, (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with the supplemental proceedings in this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
2 100 NLRB 1452.
103 NLRB No. 19.