Personal Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 959 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 959
together do these figures satisfy the minimum established standards.
No other basis for assertion of jurisdiction having been shown, we shall
dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MURDoOK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Personal. Products Corporation and Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO , Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-3761. November 10,
1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated May 27,
1954,1 as amended on August 9, 1954, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on August 25, 1954, under the supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, among the employees in the ap-
propriate unit at the Employer's plant in Chicago, Illinois. At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which discloses that, of approximately 123 eligible voters,
112 valid votes were cast : 58 were cast for the Petitioner, 53 were cast
for the Intervenor,' 1 was cast for no labor organization; and 17 bal-
lots were challenged. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number
to affect the results of the election.
On August 31, 1954, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investi-
gation and thereafter, on July 6, 1955, issued and served upon the
parties his report on challenged ballots and objections to conduct of
election. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Employer filed timely ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
,findings of fact :
Of the 17 challenged ballots, the ballots of 8 employees 3 were chal-
lenged by the Petitioner, and the ballots of 9 employees 4 were chal-
lenged by the Board agent on the ground that they were cast by voters
whose names did not.appear on the eligibility list prepared by the Em-
ployer. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that all
"Personal Products Corporation, 108 NLRB 1129.
a United Textile Workers of America, AFL.
s Willis Reeves ; Earl Roseberry ; Betty Martin ; Marie Bennett ; Nick Becker ; Bertha
LeGrand , Stephanie Latka ; Frank . Valentino.
4 Wilbur Whiteside ; Harold Schlentz ; Raymond Hensley ; Vincentia Slepicki ; Mary
Santarelh ; Victoria Kasper ; Marie Kringas ; Stephanie L'ewandowski ; Josephine Fryer_
114 NLRB No. 150.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Petitioner's challenges be overruled and that said ballots should be
opened and counted. As no exceptions to the Regional Director's re-
port have been filed with respect to the challenged ballots cast by
Becker, LeGrand, and Latka, we hereby adopt the Regional Director's
recommendation that such ballots should be opened and counted.
Exceptions were taken by the Petitioner to the Regional Director's
recommendation concerning the challenged ballots cast by Reeves,
Roseberry, Martin, Bennett, and Valentino.
Willis Reeves was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that
he is a business agent for the Intervenor and worked for the Employer
as an irregular part-time employee on a temporary basis while carry-
ing out his regular duties on behalf of the Intervenor. The Regional
Director's investigation reveals that, with the exception of 17 days'
absenteeism and 2 days' suspension as a result thereof, Reeves worked
,every day from November 10, 1953, the date he was hired as a perma-
nent employee, until June 14, 1954. He was granted a leave of ab-
,sence from June 14 to August 17, 1954, but was on the payroll during
the eligibility period and was working on the election date. Neither
the fact that a regular part-time employee holds an office in a union
nor has a full-time job elsewhere, per se, affects his eligibility to vote
in an election. , Under these circumstances, we adopt the Regional
Director's recommendation and shall overrule the challenge -to his
ballot and direct that it be opened and counted.
The Petitioner challenged the ballot cast by Earl Roseberry on the
ground that he is a temporary employee who was hired on a part-time
basis to fill a permanent electrician's job until a full-time replacement
could be found. The Regional Director's investigation reveals that
Roseberry, who had left the employ of the Employer in July 1953, was
reemployed on November 30, 1953, shortly after the termination of a
strike. Although he was rehired as an electrician on a temporary
basis for an indefinite period until the Employer could hire a full-time
electrician, it appears that he has worked a 6-hour day continuously
since that time. Thus, as of the eligibility date, May 22, 1954, and as
of the election date, August 25, 1954, he had been employed continu-
ously for approximately 6 and 9 months, respectively. The Board has
held that temporary employees, who are employed on the eligibility
date, and whose tenure of employment remains uncertain, are eligible
to vote.' Under these circumstances, and without regard to other
factors, we find that Earl Roseberry was eligible to vote. Accord-
ingly, we adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and shall
overrule the challenge to his ballot and direct that it be opened and
counted.
6 See Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation , 102 NLRB 559 , at 562; Fort Pitt Packaging
Co., Inc., 108 NLRB 1433, at footnote 5.
I
PERSONAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 961
Betty Martin was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground'that
prior to the election she gave notice to the Employer of her intention
to terminate her employment 2 days after the election, and thus had
no interest as to its outcome.' The Regional Director's investigation
reveals that this employee was employed on the eligibility date and
on the date of the election. The Board has held that the fact that
an employee intends to quit after an election, and does in fact quit,
does not affect his eligibility to vote 6 In view of the foregoing, we
adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and shall overrule the
challenge to her ballot and direct that it be opened and counted.
Marie Bennett was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that
she is a cafeteria employee and, as such, is specifically excluded from
the bargaining unit. The Regional Director's investigation reveals
that Marie Bennett is a matron in the janitor's department, and is
principally engaged in performing cleaning and other functions in the
plant washrooms and locker rooms. Although she cleans tables and
sweeps the floor in the cafeteria, she performs no work in connection
with the preparation or serving of food. In excess of 50 percent of
her time is allocated to duties outside the cafeteria. ' In addition, Marie
Bennett receives the same employee benefits as production and main-
tenance employees. On these facts, we find that Marie Bennett prop-
erly belongs in the unit and was entitled to vote in the election. We
therefore' adopt the Regional -Director's recommendation and shall
overrule the challenge to her ballot and direct that it be opened and
counted.
The Petitioner challenged the ballot cast by Frank Valentino on the
ground that he was hired to replace 1 of 3 strikers against whom the
Employer had discriminated by refusing to reemploy them subsequent
to'a'strike, and who are the subject of a pending unfair labor practice
charge against the Employer 7 The Regional Director's investigation
reveals that this employee was hired as a full-time permanent employee
on April 12, 1954, and has been continuously employed since that date.
In excepting to the Regional Director's recommendation that the chal-
lenge to Valentino's ballot be overruled, the Petitioner agrees with the
Regional Director's finding that Valentino is a permanent employee,
but contends that he should be declared ineligible to vote on the ground
that "if one of these three men had not been discriminated against,
Valentino would not have been employed on the eligibility date."
However, as Valentino was a permanent employee at the time of the
election , and as there is no evidence that his status would be affected
by any possible order to reinstate the employees whom he allegedly
replaced,'we are of the opinion that he was an ' eligible ' voter at the time
6 tii'httinq Corporation, 99 NLRB 117, at 122; English Lumber Company, 106 NLRB
1152, at-,1154.
(7 Case ,No. 13-CA-1789.
962 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the election. Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Director's recom-
mendation and shall overrule the challenge to Valentino's ballot and
direct that it be opened and counted.
It appears that the nine ballots, challenged by the Board agent on
the ground that they were cast by employees whose names did not Pp-
pear on the eligibility list prepared by the Employer,' were cast by
employees who are the subject of pending unfair labor practice
charges. Of the 9, the Regional Director recommended that the Board
overrule 6 ballots, that it sustain 2 others, and withhold a third pending
disposition of the unfair labor practice charges. The Employer ex,-
cepted to the Regional Director's findings and recommendations-con-
cerning these employees. With regard to the recommendations con-
cerning these last three ballots, the investigation reveals that the Peti-
tioner, in its unfair labor practice charge now pending before the
Board, alleges that the Employer "discriminated against former
strikers, Wilber Whiteside or Raymond Hensley or Harold Schlentz
by failing and refusing to re-employ and reinstate one of these expert
mechanics," but instead hired another employee who was far less quali-
fied for the job which was open at the time. In his report, the Regional
Director recommended that, since the Petitioner contends that only 1
of these employees would be eligible to vote, the challenges to 2 of these
3 employees be sustained and that the third remain unresolved pending
disposition of the unfair labor practice charge. As it is impossible
at this time and prior to the resolution of the unfair labor practice
charge, to determine specifically which 2 of the 3 ballots should be
sustained, we shall not adopt the Regional Director's recommendation
concerning these 3 ballots. Furthermore, as all nine are the subject
of pending charges, and since it is not clear from the record before us
to what extent their eligibility status will be affected by the disposition
of such charges, the Board is of the opinion that it should not at this
time resolve these challenges.
Inasmuch as the counting of the ballots of Nick Becker, Bertha
LeGrand, Stephanie Latka, Willis Reeves, Earl Roseberry, Betty
Martin, Marie Bennett, and Frank Valentino, the challenges to which
are hereby overruled, may determine the results of the election, we
shall direct that they be opened and counted and that the Regional
Director issue a revised tally of ballots, before we proceed with a final
determination of the Regional Director's recommendations. In tree
event that a sufficient number of ballots were cast for the Petitioner
to give it a majority of all the votes cast in the election, the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for the unit heretofore found appropriate.' If the revised
8 See footnote 4, above
9 we shall not pass upon the objections to election, the Regional Director' s report
thereon, and the parties' exceptions thereto, until the final results of the election have
been isceitained, because such objections mays become moot alter the challenged ballots
PROGRESSIVE BRASS FOUNDRY CO., INC. 963
tally does not indicate that the results of the election have been de-
termined in the manner noted, the Board will, upon being advised by
the Regional Director, give consideration to the disposition of the
issues raised by the objections and the Petitioner's and Employer's
exceptions to the Regional Director's report thereon
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of employees Becker, LeGrand, Latka,
Reeves, Roseberry, Martin, Bennett, and Valentino, and serve upon
the parties a revised tally of ballots, and issue a certification of
representatives.
[The Board ordered that the above-entitled matter be referred to
the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region for disposition.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no- part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Direction, and Order.
herein ruled valid have been counted See Iloffinan Hardwaie Co, 112 NLRD 982
Accordingly , the Board expressly reserves herein the disposition with respect to all other
recommendations of, the Regional Director as contained in his report, and all exceptions
filed by the parties not specifically treated herein, until such time as the Regional Director
serves his revised tally of ballots
Progressive Brass Foundry Co., Inc. and Local Union 84, Inter-
national Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North Amer-
ica, A. F. L., Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-7453. November 10,
1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of July 11, 1955,
an election was conducted on August 9 among the employees in the
unit found appropriate, in which 10 votes were cast for the Petitioner,
11 were cast against it, and 2 votes were challenged. A tally of ballots
to this effect was duly served upon the parties. Within the following
5-day period allowed by Section 102.61 of the Rules, on August 15,
the Petitioner filed with the Regional Director and served upon the
Employer a telegram reading as follows :
We hereby file objection to the conduct of the election and coil-
duct affecting the results of the election in the above named case.
Board permitted collusion between company and other union.
Bill of particulars will be filed in a few days. Copy of telegram
to company.
114 NLRB No 149.
387644-56-vol. 114-62
1