Fraser and Johnston Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 900 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following
voting group:
All patte rnmake r s , 4 including patte rnmake r s A and B,
pattern checkers, and learners employed by the Employer at
its Easton, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding all other employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
If a majority of the employees in this group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
be represented in a separate unit, and the Regional Director
conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such a
unit, which the Board under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If, how-
ever, a majority of the employees in the group vote for the
Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to remain part of the existing production and maintenance
unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifi-
cation of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson, dissenting:
The employees sought herein by the Petitioner have been
represented by the Intervenor in a production and maintenance
unit for 1Z years. In view of this substantial collective-
bargaining history on a plantwide basis, and in the absence
of any other factors which would warrant their severance
from the established unit other than their craft status, I would
not accord these employees separate representation.5
4 The record reveals that one patternmaker is engaged in the work of setting iron cores in
the iron foundry. The record, however, does not reveal if he exercises the skills of his craft
when performing this work. We, therefore, direct that if such employee is regularly engaged
in patternmaking work for a substantial number of hours each week, he is eligible to vote.
The Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384.
5See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
FRASER AND JOHNSTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR-
CRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-821.
August 25, 1953
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on
November 28, 1952, an election by secret ballot was conducted
on December 19, 1952, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, among
employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following
the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The
106 NLRB No. 132.
FRASER AND JOHNSTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 901
tally showed that of approximately 104 eligible voters, 45 voted
for the Petitioner , 9 voted for the Intervenor , 1 and 33 voted
against both participating labor organizations . There were also
1 void and 7 challenged ballots. The Intervenor and the Em-
ployer filed timely objections to the election.
On June 2, 1953 , the Board issued a Supplemental Decision
and Direction2 overruling the Intervenor ' s objections, sus-
taining the Employer ' s objections to the voiding of 1 ballot,
and directing that the 7 challenged ballots be opened and
counted. Thereafter , the Regional Director served upon the
parties a revised tally of ballots which showed that, of the 95
valid ballots cast , 47 were for the Petitioner, 10 were for the
Intervenor , and 38 were against both labor organizations.
As the results of the election were inconclusive, the Regional
Director on June 25, 1953 , conducted a runoff election pursuant
to Section 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Of the
43 eligible voters in this election , 11 voted for and 29 voted
against the Petitioner . Within the time provided therefor, the
Petitioner filed objections to the runoff election . The Regional
Director investigated the objections and on July 9 , 1953 , issued
and duly served upon the parties a report in which he recom-
mended that the objections be overruled. The Petitioner filed
timely exceptions to this report.
Having duly considered the matter , the Board 8 makes the
following disposition of the Petitioner ' s objections.
The Petitioner ' s objections are based upon the fact that
eligibility to vote in the runoff election was limited to em-
ployees eligible to vote in the original election who were
employed in eligible categories on the date of the runoff
election . The Petitioner contends that the use of this eligibility
period prevented a substantial number of employees from
voting.
According to the Regional Director , in making arrangements
for the runoff election , the field examiner in charge discussed
this question of eligibility with both parties. The Petitioner's
representative , M. R. Lee , specifically requested that eligi-
bility be determined in the manner providedforin the election.
About a week before the election the field examiner wrote both
parties confirming his understanding of the eligibility payroll
to be used in the runoff election . Neither party raised any
objections to these arrangements . Five days before the runoff
election, a payroll list of employees deemed eligible to vote
was delivered to William Brown , another representative of the
Petitioner . At no time before the election did the Petitioner
indicate that it had changed its position relative to the eligi-
bility date . The Regional Director concluded that the election
' International Association of Machinists , District Lodge No. 86, AFL.
2 105 NLRB 308.
9 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Houston , Murdock, and
Peterson].
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was conducted in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations and the understanding of the parties. Accordingly, he
recommended that the objections be overruled.
In its exceptions, the Petitioner denies that its representa-
tive, Lee, specifically requested that voting in the runoff
election be limited to those employees eligible to vote in the
original election who still were employed ineligible categories
on the date of the runoff election. The failure to object to the
arrangements before the election, the Petitioner lays to the
fact that Lee was out of town and another representative acting
for him assumed that the arrangements reflected Lee's agree-
ment.
Section 102.62 (b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations
provides:
Employees who were eligible to vote in the election who
are employed in an eligible category on the date of the
runoff election shall be eligible to vote in the runoff elec-
tion.
The eligibility period used in the runoff election thus con-
formed to the Board's Rules.4 The Regional Director was
without power to use any eligibility period other than that
actually used. Whether or not the Petitioner specifically re-
quested the use of this eligibility period is therefore imma-
te rial.
We find that the Petitioner's objections do not raise sub-
stantial or material issues with respect to the election. In
accordance with the recommendation of the Regional Director,
they are hereby overruled.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO,
and that this labor organization is not the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees of the above-named Employer, in
the appropriate unit in this case.]
4Reed Roller Bit Company, 61 NLRB 867; Sears Roebuck & Company, 48 NLRB 1170.
Compare the different rule when a new election rather than a runoff is directed Cleveland
Cliffs Company, 68 NLRB 109; Socony- Vacuum Oil Company, Inc , 84 NLRB 969.