Fraser and Johnston Manufacturing Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 25, 1953106 N.L.R.B. 900 (N.L.R.B. 1953) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation