Hincher Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1314 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
actual supervisory authority. They stand at the phone all day,
receiving requests for service, lost-and-found inquiries, break-
age reports, and check-out reports, all of which they relay
to the proper destinations. They make a record of all such
messages . The Employer regards them as clericals and
would exclude them even though they work in a service area
under the direction of service supervisors, and are therefore
plant clericals rather than office clericals.6 Although plant
clericals as a group will usually be given an opportunity to
join a production or service unit at the request of any party,
the Petitioner is not now making such a request. There are
other plant clericals (such as the cafeteria and dining room
cashiers and the secretary in the laundry) who are not sought
by the Petitioner in the present proceeding. We therefore
find that Toledo and Lopez are excluded from the unit.? The
proposal to include them is denied because they constitute
only a segment of the plant clerical group.
The linen room attendant, Herminio Resto, separates linens
into bundles to be taken to the various maids, helps deliver
linen directly to rooms on special requests, and constantly
checks the supply of linens in all linen storage areas. In
addition to this physical work, he directs the work of the linen
room boy and keeps a few records. When Executive House-
keeper Faye is faced with a decision whether to retain or
dismiss a linen room boy, she consults Restoand relies heavily
on his opinion; for it was Resto who originally set up the
Employer's linen room system when it first opened in San
Juan. We find that he is a supervisor and that he is excluded
from the unit.
As no question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of the Employer's employees, we shall dismiss
the petition.
(The Board dismissed the petition.)
6 The unit description appears to exclude all clericals , not just office clericals.
7 See Rath Packing Company, 101 NLRB 96.
HELEN H. DIETZE, JULIE EARL AND RUDOLPH HALM,
PARTNERS, d/b/a HINCHER MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Petitioner and LOCAL 671, UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 35-
RM-56. October 27, 1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On August 31, 1953, pursuant to a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the
106 NLRB No. 231.
HINCHER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1315
stipulated unit. Upon the completion of the election, a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of
approximately 31 eligible voters, 30 cast valid ballots, all of
which were for the Union.
On September 8, 1953, the Employer filed timely objections
to the election , alleging in substance that the Union in its pre-
election campaign threatened and intimidated eligible em-
ployees.
On September 17, 1953, the Regional Director issued his
report on objections to election, recommending that the
Employer's objections be overruled because it had failed to
submit evidence substantiating its objections. The Regional
Director also recommended that the Board issue the proper
certification of representatives. Thereafter, the Employer
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved herein claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Washington, Indiana, plant, including plant clerical
employees, but excluding office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
5. The Employer objected to the election upon the ground
that in preelection statements to the employees, the Union
allegedly had said that unless the employees voted for the
Union, they would never be able to get jobs in union shops in
the heavily unionized town of Washington, Indiana. The Re-
gional Director requested the Employer to submit evidence in
support of its objections, including the names of witnesses to
whom these statements were allegedly made. The Employer
declined to furnish such information stating that it feared re-
taliation against witnesses . The Regional Director thereupon
recommended that the objections be found without merit be-
cause of the Employer's failure to submit evidence or sources
of evidence to assist in the investigation of the objections. In
its exceptions, the Employer contends that because of the in-
timidatory atmosphere, the Regional Director, as suggested,
should have interviewed all 32 employees in the unit. In this
way, it claims, statements could have been obtained without
the necessity for singling out individual employees for identi-
fication by the Union as Employer witnesses.
' The unit is the same as that described in the stipulation for certification upon consent
election
322615 0 - 54 - 84
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has consistently held that a party filing objec-
tions to an election is obligated to furnish evidence in support
of such objections, and that, unless such evidence is produced,
the Regional Director is not required further to pursue his
investigation of such objections.' Any other rule would seri-
ously impede the processing of representation petitions. The
Board is fully able to protect individuals who may appear as
witnesses at its investigations or hearings against retaliatory
action either by unions or employers. Accordingly, as the
Employer failed to submit evidence in support of its objec-
tions, we find that they do not raise material or substantial
issues with respect to the election and hereby overrule them.
As the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes
cast in the election, we shall certify it as the bargaining
representative ' of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Local 671, Upholsterers' International
Union of North America, AFL, as the designated collective-
bargaining representative of the employees of the Hincher
Manufacturing Company, Washington, 'Indiana, in the unit
hereinabove found appropriate.]
2 Wiley Mfg. Inc., 93 NLRB 1600; Norfolk SouthernBus Corporation, 61 NLRB 1591; Norfolk
Southern Bus Corporation, 66 NLRB 1165, enfd. 159 F. 2d 516 (C. A. 2).
INTER-COUNTY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE COR-
PORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-
2043. October 28, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry D.
Campodonico, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
The Employer, a rural electric corporation, has its principal
place of business in Danville, Kentucky. It generates no
electricity, but purchases all of its electricity for resale
from the Kentucky Utilities Company at Lexington, Kentucky.
During the year immediately preceding the hearing, the
Employer purchased, from the Kentucky Utilities Company,
electricity valued at more than $100,000. During the same
period it resold and distributed to its members electricity
valued at more than $400,000. A small amount of its sales
were to commercial users, railroads, dams, and other com-
panies . Most of its sales were to its 8 , 000 rural consumers.
106 NLRB No. 239.