Indianapolis Wire Bound Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 605 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

SECURITY ENTERPRISES 605
excluding office clerical employees , diesinkers , trim makers,
diesinking and duplicating machine operators , indentured
apprentices , guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. Contrary to the contentions of 104 UE and 106 UE, we
do not find that the designation of the UAW - CIO locals on the
ballot as 104 UAW and 106 UAW will create confusion in the
minds of the voters as to the identity of the participants in
the election . Accordingly , we grant the request of the Pe-
titioners that their names appear on the ballots as in the
caption herein. 12
The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion by 104
UE and 106 UE that any election directed herein should be
deferred until a representative complement of employees is
employed at the East Moline Works . The record indicates that
at the time of the hearing , because of recent layoffs, the
number of production and maintenance employees . was about
one-third of the number employed at the time of the disaffilia-
tion actions described above . The Employer stated that it did
not anticipate any substantial change in the number of em-
ployees in the immediate future . Accordingly , we see no
reasons to defer the election herein directed . Furthermore,
as stated in the direction of elections , those employees who
have been only temporarily laid off , will be eligible to vote.
The motion is therefore denied.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
12 Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236 at 1239. Participation of 104 UE and 106 UE
in the elections directed herein is conditioned upon their compliance with Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act.
SECURITY ENTERPRISES DIVISION OF INDIANAPOLIS WIRE
BOUND BOX COMPANY and LOCAL 135, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 35-RC-944 . April 29, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
On January 8, 1954, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board in the above -entitled case,' an
election was conducted , under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director , among truckdrivers at the Employer's
Indianapolis , Indiana , plywood manufacturing and sales plant
in the unit found appropriate . Following the election , the Re-
gional Director issued and served upon the parties a tally of
ballots , which shows that , of the 7 ballots cast in the election,
I Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
108 NLRB No. 97.
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 ballots were cast for the Petitioner , 1 ballot was cast against
the Petitioner , and 4 ballots were challenged . The challenged
ballots are sufficient to affect the outcome of the election.
On January 15, 1954, the Employer filed timely objections
to the election . On February 9, 1954, after investigation, the
Regional Director issued and served on the parties his report
on objections to election , challenged ballots , and recommenda-
tion . On March 1, 1954 , the Employer filed exceptions to the
Regional Director ' s report.
The Board has reviewed the Employer ' s objections to the
election , the Regional Director ' s report, and the Employer's
exceptions thereto. Upon the entire record in this case, the
Board finds as follows:
(1) The Employer ' s objections : the irregularly
marked ballots
The election ballots instruct the voters to "Mark an 'X' in
the square of your choice." One ballot cast for the Petitioner
contains a checkmark in the "Yes" square ; and the other ballot
contains in the "Yes" square both an "X" and a checkmark,
the one superimposed in the other.
During the counting of the ballots , the Board agent in charge
of the election ruled that both these ballots were valid. The
Employer objected to his ruling with respect to one ballot. The
Regional Director considered the validity of both ballots because
they contained similar irregular markings . The Regional Direc-
tor found ( 1) that markings on these ballots were not inherently
such as to disclose the identity of the voters ; (2) that they do
not constitute so significant a departure from the usual manner
in marking ballots as to destroy the secrecy of identity of the
voters ; and (3 ) that they do not indicate that they were made
deliberately to identify the voters . 2 He, therefore , found that
both ballots were valid and were properly countedandhe rec-
ommended that the Board overrule the objection . The Employer
excepted to his findings . We have examined the ballots and we
agree with , and adopt , the Regional Director ' s findings as to
them. We therefore overrule the Employer' s objections and
exceptions.
(2) The challenged ballots
The Regional Director found that William Cole and Emil
Kinney , whose ballots were challenged at the election, were
not eligible voters , and recommended that the challenges to
their ballots be sustained . The Employer takes no exception
2 Luna Iron & Steel Company, 97 NLRB 909 at page 913.
SECURITY ENTERPRISES 607
to his finding. We therefore sustain the challenges to the bal-
lots of Cole and Kinney.
The Regional Director found that Charles Balke and Ewing
Spencer, whose ballots were challenged in the election, were
eligible voters and recommended that the challenges to their
ballots be overruled. No exceptions were taken as to his find-
ing with respect to Spencer, and we find that Spencer is an eli-
gible voter. The Employer takes exception to finding with
respect to Balke.
The Employer contends that Balke is a supervisor and there-
fore ineligible to vote. The Regional Director finds that Balke,
classified as a truckdriver, spends almost his entire time driv-
ing a truck and that a substantial portion of this time is spent
outside Indianapolis. Balke's rate of pay is between that of
the other truckdrivers and that of the shipping clerk and truck
foreman, who was specifically excluded from the unit as a
supervisor.
Balke, a longtime employee of the Employer, occupied the
position of shipping clerk and truck foreman approximately
from September 1952 to June 1953, when he became a truck-
driver. It does not appear that as of the date of the election
or the eligibility period Balke possessed or exercised any
supervisory authority.3 Balke is an experienced employee-
without the power responsibly to direct others. Under these
circumstances, we find, as did the Regional Director, that
Balke is not a supervisor as defined in the Act and that he is
therefore eligible to vote in the election.
Because the counting of the ballots of Spencer and Balke may
be determinative of the results of the election, we shall direct
that they be opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Direction, open and counttheballots of Charles Balke and Ewing
Spencer and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of
ballots. I
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction.
31n the absence of the shipping clerk and truck foreman, Balke answers the telephone and
occasionally prepares bills of lading.