Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1288 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

.1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anarily with those orders, we conclude that it has not become a separate
operation devoted to Floor Coverings work, but continues to be op-
erated by the Employer as an integral part of the multiplant operation.
With the assumption of the Floor Coverings orders, some rearrange-
ment of operations was necessary, but the facts show that the Floor
Coverings orders have been undertaken by the multiplant operation
and are being carried out through the combined functions of the sev-
eral plants. As the unit petitioned for is inappropriate, we shall dis-
miss the petition.
.[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Company and Shopmen's
Local Union No. 518 of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 14-RC-2925. May 9,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
entered into by the parties January 5, 1956, an election by secret ballot
was conducted on January 18, 1956, among the employees at the Em-
ployer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region. At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which shows that, of approximately 129 eligible voters, 125
cast ballots, of which 59 were cast for, and 59 against, the Petitioner,
and 7 were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investi-
gation of the challenged ballots and thereafter, on March 28, 1956,
issued and served upon the parties his report in which he recom-
mended to the Board that the challenges to the ballots of Kitson,
Adkins, Forester, and Ross be sustained and that the challenges to the
ballots of Cole, Cochren, and Morice be overruled. On April 6,
1956, the Employer filed its exceptions to the report and the Petitioner
filed its exceptions on April 9.
Upon the entire record in this case; the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer.
115 NLRB No. 205.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPANY 1289
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1)'and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's St.
Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding office clerical and plant clerical'
employees, draftsmen, engineering employees, watchmen, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Regional Director's report on challenged ballots.
In his report on challenged ballots, the Regional Director made
recommendations with respect to the ballots of the following em-
ployees:
J. R. Kitson: Kitson's ballot was challenged by Petitioner. The
investigation revealed that Kitson acts as a relief watchman, and
the Regional Director therefore found that he was ineligible to vote
because of his guard duties. The Employer, in its exceptions, con-
ceded that Kitson is a watchman but contends that he also performs
maintenance duties. As it is established that this watchman is a part-
time guard, and as the latter falls within the statutory definition of
guards,' we adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that this
challenge be sustained.
Harold Adkins . Petitioner challenged this ballot on the ground that
Adkins is a supervisor. The Regional Director's investigation showed
that Adkins reports to the shop foreman when an employee fails to do
his work; that he handles grievances which arise in the fitting depart-
ment; and that he responsibly directs the employees under his super'
vision. The Employer urges,that Adkins has no supervisory authority
but fails to present facts in refutation of the foregoing. We therefore
find Adkins to be a supervisor and adopt the Regional Director's
recommendation that the challenge to his ballot be sustained. ,
Leo Forester and Jack Ross : Forester was challenged by the Board
agent on the ground that his name was not on the eligibility list.
IL On February 13, 1956, some 4 weeks after the election held herein , the Petitioner
requested permission to withdraw its petition . The Employer has not consented to this
request. The Regional Director in his report recommended that the request for with-
drawal be denied as untimely. The Petitioner has taken no exception to this recom-
mendation
. In view of the Petitioner 's failure to except to the Regional Director 's recommendation
that the request to withdraw be denied, we shall adopt the Regional Director 's recom-
mendation. Furthermore, as it is clear that the Petitioner is continuing its claim to rep-
resent the employees in this proceeding , and has not unequivocally disclaimed any right
of representation for this group , we find no basis for the withdrawal of the petition. To
allow such withdrawal under these circumstances and at this stage of the proceeding
would be inequitable and prejudicial to other parties interested in the election. See
Standard Automotive Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 726 , 727; see also Frank
Foundries Corporation, 92 NLRB 1754 , footnote 1.
2 The Regional Director found that the parties agreed to exclude plant clericals. We
amend the stipulated unit to reflect this agreement.
8Walterboro-Manufacturing Corporation; 106 NLRB 1383.
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ross was challenged for the reason that he was a plant clerical. The
Regional Director found that both men were plant clericals and that
the parties had agreed to exclude all plant clericals from the unit. The
Petitioner excepts generally as to the finding concerning Forester, con-
tending that he should be in the unit because he does more production
than clerical work. As the Petitioner offered no evidence to support its
contention, we adopt the recommendation that the challenge be
sustained.
The investigation showed that Ross works in the shipping de-
partment and that his duties are predominantly clerical in nature. ' As
no exceptions were filed to this finding, we adopt the recommendation
that this challenge be sustained.
Percy H. Cole, Leslie J. Cochren, George B. Morice : These ballots
were challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that Cole was a
guard; that Cochren performed no production or maintenance work;
and that Morice was a supervisor. The investigation revealed that
Cole is a plant janitor and performs no guard duties; that Cochren
is an office and .plant janitor and- that Morice is =an inspector perform-
ing no supervisory functions. The Petitioner excepts generally to
these findings, but proffered no evidence contrary to the foregoing
findings of the Regional Director. Accordingly, we adopt the Re-
gional Director's recommendation to overrule the challenges to their
ballots.
As we have overruled the challenges to 3 ballots and sustained the
challenges to 4 ,ballots and as the.outcome ,of the election depends on
the consideration ,of the 3 ballots, we shall order that these ballots be
opened and counted.
'[The Board ordered that the Regional Director for the Fourteenth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Percy H. Cole, .Leslie J. Cochren, and
George B. Morice, and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of
ballots.]
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union , Local No. 20, and
Lawrence Steinberg, No Erwin , Homer Mohler, Edward Sul-
lenger and Jack Cassidy and National 'Cement Products Co. of
Toledo , Ohio (a partnership ). Case No. 8-CC-37. May 10, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 29, 1955, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
115 NLRB No. 206.