Indianapolis Wire Bound Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 251 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of INDIANAPOLIS WIRE•BOUND Box COMPANY and UNITED
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS' ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, LOCAL 392 (CIO)
Case No. R-3858
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
DIRECTION
September 01, 1942
On June 16, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board issued a De-,
,vision and Direction of Election` in the 'above-entitled proceeding.,
Pursuant to the Direction of 'Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on July 1, 1942, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana).
On July 21, 1942, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article
III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board-Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 2, as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties
an Election Report.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported as
follows : -
Total on eligibility list----------------------------------- 135
Total ballots,cast ------------------------------------------ 119
Total ballots challenged----------------------------------- 10
Total blank ballots ---------------------------------------- 0
Total void ballots---------------------------------------- 0
Total valid votes counted--------------------------------- 109
Votes cast for United Construction Workers' Organizing
Committee, Local 392 (CIO) ---------------------------- 57
Votes cast against United Construction Workers' Organizing
Committee, Local 392 (CIO) ---------------------------- 52
In his Election Report, the Regional Director recommended that
the challenges to the ballots of George Voelcker, Jesse Falk, and
George Bailey, made by United Construction Workers' Organizing
Committee, Local 392 (CIO), herein called the Union, and the chal-
lenge to the ballot of Franklin Snoeberger, made by Indianapolis
Wire Bound Box Company, herein called the Company, and the chal-
' 41 N. L. R. B. 1023.
44 N. L. R. B., No. 47. I
251
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
lenges to the ballots of E. F. Herther and A. Al. Cain, made by agents
of the Board, should be sustained, and that the challenged ballots
accordingly be not counted. He further recommended that the chal-
lenges to the ballots of Alfred Dolsen, Albert Abraham, and Walter
Whyland, made by the Union, and the challenge to the ballot of George
Gardner, made by the Company, should be overruled, but since the
results of the election would not be affected by counting these four
ballots, they should not be counted.. -
Thereafter,, the Company filed Objections to the Election Report,
contending that the- Regional Director had erred in his rulings on
the challenged ballots of E. F. Herther, A. M. Cain, Franklin Snoe-
berger, Jesse Falk, and George Bailey. The Company also objected
to the counting of the ballots of Cleo O'Neal and Paul Hyatt, on
the ground that they remained in the employ of the Company only
long enough to cast their ballots in the election.
On, August 26,,1942, the Regional Director issued a Report on Ob-
jections, in which he found the Company's contentions to be without
merit. On. September 4,1942, the, Company filed a supplemental brief,
which the Board has considered.
The ballots of E. F. Herther and A. M. Cain were challenged by
an agent of the Board because of doubt as to whether or not these
men should be, included in the appropriate unit since they were em-
ployed by ,the Company as guards who have police power, are bonded,
and carry guns. The Regional Director ruled that these challenges
should be sustained. The Company objected to this ruling on .,the
grounds that Herther and Cain were maintenance employees despite
their police powers, that their names appeared on the pay roll used
to determine eligibility to vote, and that they were not specifically
excluded from the appropriate unit. The Report on Objections states
that an investigation disclosed that Herther and Cain were not en-
gaged in any actual maintenance work. We find that watchmen are
not maintenance employees and, therefore, were not included in the
appropriate unit.- 'Accordingly, we shall sustain the recommendation
of the Regional Director in regard to Herther and Cain and shall
direct that their ballots not be counted.
The ballot of Franklin Snoeberger was challenged by the Company
on the ground that he is a supervisor. The Regional Director ruled
that this challenge should be sustained, and the Company objected
to the ruling on the.-ground that the challenge had been withdrawn
and that Snoeberger was merely a. "strawboss," and not a supervisory
employee. The Regional Director's reports indicate that the chal-
lenge was not withdrawn by the Company, and that the Union also
regarded Snoeberger as a supervisory employee. The Election Report
-shows that Snoeberger stated that he was a foreman in charge of the
INDIANAPOLIS WIRE'BOUND BOX COMPANY 253
repair line and had 6 to 13 men under him. We find that Snoeberger
is a supervisory employee and, as such, was excluded from the appro-
priate unit by our Decision and Direction of Election. We shall
sustain the recommendation of the Regional Director in regard to
Snoeberger and shall direct that his ballot not be counted.
The ballots of Jesse Falk and George Bailey were challenged by
the Union on the ground that they had quit or been discharged for
cause after the pay-roll period used at the election to determine eligi-
bility to vote. The Regional Director sustained these challenges.
The Company objected to this ruling on the ground that Falk and
Bailey had been rehired prior to the election and thus had not ceased
to be employees of the Company at the time of the election. The
Election Report shows that Falk and Bailey were discharged for cause
1 and 2 days, respectively, after the pay-roll period used to determine
eligibility to vote, and were reinstated 2 days and 1 day, respectively,
before the election. In view of these facts, we find that,Falk and
Bailey were reinstated prior to the election, and since they were in-
cluded in the appropriate unit, since their names were on the pay roll
used to determine elegibility to vote, and since they were employees
of the Company upon the date of the election, they were entitled to
cast their ballots in the election. We shall overrule the recommenda-
tion of the Regional Director with respect to Falk and Bailey and shall
direct that their ballots be counted. _
The Company's objection to the counting of the ballots of Cleo
O'Neal and Paul Hyatt, who, it claims, intended to quit prior to the
election but remained in the employ of the Company only long enough
to cast their ballots, is without merit since they were included in the
appropriate unit and were employees of the'Company on the date of
the election.
The recommendations of the Regional Director sustaining the chal-
lenge to the ballot of George Voelcker, made by the Union, and over-
ruling the challenges to the ballots of Alfred Dolsen, Albert Abraham,
and Walter Whyland, made by the Union, and overruling the chal-
lenge to the ballot of George Gardner, made by,the Company, are
sustained, since neither of the parties offered any 'objections as to
them. '
DIRECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Indianapolis Wire Bound Box Company, Indianapolis, Indiana,
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region shall, pursuant to the
Rules and Regulations of the Board, set forth above, and subject to
Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, within ten (10)
days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of
Alfred Dolsen, Albert Abraham, Walter Whyland, George Gardner,.
Jesse Falk, and George Bailey and shall, thereafter, prepare and cause
to be served upon the parties An this case, a- Supplemental Election
Report, embodying his findiligss,therein and his recommendations as
to the results of the secret ballot.