Hook Drugs, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1157 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

HOOK DRUGS, INC. 1157
We therefore adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that
the challenges to the ballots of Florey and Reitan be overruled and
shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for, the Twentieth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Florence Florey and Gloria Reitan cast
in the election held herein on September 12, 1955, and serve upon the
parties to the proceeding a revised tally of ballots.]
M Ia i Muxnoc - took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction.
Hook Drugs, Inc. and Local 135, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 35 RC-1137. November 16, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of 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
unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon conclusion of the elec-
tion a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that of ap-
proximately 72 eligible voters, 61 cast ballots, of which 30 were for the
Petitioner, 25 against the Petitioner, and 6 were challenged. No ob-
jections to the conduct of the election were filed by either of the
parties.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re-
sults-of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on September
30, 1955, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged
ballots. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that chal-
lenges to 'the ballots of certain employees be sustained and challenges
to the ballots of other employees be overruled. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report and requested
a hearing in this matter?
Harold Bashore : The Petitioner challenged the ballot of Bashore
on the ground that he was not within the appropriate unit of "all
'warehouse and commissary employees at the Employer's Indianapolis,
i Issued June 22, 1955. Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
As our disposition of the challenged ballots does not involve the resolution of sub-
stantial and material factual issues , we deny the Employer 's request for a hearing.
114 NLRB No. 161.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Indiana, operations ." The Regional Director found that Bashore,
who is stationed in Muncie , Indiana, was not eligible to vote. As the
record shows that at the hearing the parties agreed to exclude Bashore
from the unit , we sustain the challenge to his ballot.
Frank E. Durham: The Regional Director sustained the Petition-
er's challenge to Durham's ballot on the ground that he is a guard
within the meaning of the Act. The Employer contends to the con-
trary. The Employer' s version of Durham's duties as substitute
watchman shows that this year Durham substituted, for 1 of the Em-
ployer's 2 regular watchmen 9 during a 2-week vacation period and
that on 7 other nights he spent either all of his time or half of his
time as a watchman . During the past year, Durham also substituted
for watchmen on'vacation for a total of 2 weeks and "worked another
day or two" when 1 of the watchmen was sick or absent for other rea-
sons. In view of the foregoing, we find , in agreement with the
Regional Director , that Durham is a regular substitute watchman
who spends part of his time performing guard duties and is therefore
a guard within the meaning of the Act.4 Accordingly, as Durham was
not eligible to vote, we sustain the challenge to his ballot.
The Petitioner also challenged the ballots of Calvin Rothenbush,
Wilfred E . Schwartz , and James, W. Kelso. As no exception was
taken to the Regional Director 's ruling that these three employees
were eligible to vote, we adopt his finding and recommendation that
the challenges to their ballots be overruled . As we have sustained
the challenges to the ballots of Bashore and Durham , we find it un-
necessary either to open and count the ballots of Rothenbush,
Schwartz , and Kelso , or to pass upon the Petitioner 's challenge to the
ballot of Leslie B. Eberhardt , since these four ballots cannot affect
the results of the election . Accordingly, as the Petitioner has obtained
a majority of the valid votes cast , we shall certify the Petitioner as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropri-
ate unit.
[The Board certified Local 135, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate.]
MEMBER MIIRDOCS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
3 The regular watchmen , as agreed upon by, the parties at the hearing , were excluded
from the unit as guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.
4 American Lawnmower Company, 108 NLRB 1589, 1593.