Seneca Falls Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 904 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SENECA FAILS MACHINE COMPANY, E11PLOYER and
SENECA FALLS MAC MINE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER
Case No. 3-R-1358
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
ANn
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
February .21, 1947
On January 6, 1947, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board herein on Deceinber 16, 1946,1 an election
by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York).
At the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The Tally shows that there were approximately 14i eligible voters,
of whom 61 voted for the Petitioner, 50 voted for the Intervenor,
2 voted against both labor organizations and 8 voted under challenge;
there was 1 void ballot. The challenged ballots are insufficient in
number to affect the results of the election.
On January 7, 1947, the Intervenor filed Objections to the Conduct
of the Election. Thereafter, the Regional Director investigated the
issues raised by the Objections, and on January 24, 1947, issued and
duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections, recommending
that the Objections be overruled. On February (;, 1947, the Intervenor
filed Exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on Objections. On
February 8, 1947, the Employer filed a Reply to the Intervenor's
Exceptions.
We have considered the Intervenor's Objections, the Regional Di-
rector's Report on Objections, the Intervenor's Exceptions, the Em-
ployer's Reply to the Exceptions and the entire record in the case.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find as follows :
The Intervenor objected to the election on the grounds that:
(1) The list of eligible voters submitted by the e 6ployer omitted
the names of some employees who had been temporarily laid off.
As a result of a decline in business following the termination of
hostilities in World War II, the Employer, on September 28 and 29,
'71N L It B 1100
72 N L. R B, No 154
904
SENECA FADS MACHINE COMPANY 905
1945, laid off 16 employees after consultation with representatives of
the Intervenor. None of these employees was recalled before January
21, 1946, when the strike began. We find that these 16 employees were
permanently laid off in September 1945, and, therefore, were ineligible
to vote in the election held January 6, 1947. Accordingly, the names
of these employees were properly excluded from the list of eligible
voters.
(2) The list of eligible voters submitted by the Employer con-
tained the names of some ineligible supervisory employees.
Since the Intervenor had ample opportunity at the polls to chal-
lenge any employees whom it considered ineligible, it was not prej-
udiced by the inclusion of alleged ineligible employees on the eligibility
list. The Intervenor did, in fact, challenge all alleged supervisors
who attempted to vote.
(3) The Employer had been active in the formation of, and ren-
dered assistance to, the Petitioner.
This allegation is not supported by the evidence. The Intervenor
filed charges against the Employer on July 27, 1946, alleging that
the Employer had violated Section 8 (1), (2), and (5) of the Act.'
These charges were dismissed by the Regional Director on September
5. 1946. On September 16, 1946, the Intervenor appealed the Regional
Director's action, and on October 7, 1946, the Board upheld the Re-
gional Director and dismissed the appeal. On January 10, 1947, the
Intervenor filed new charges against the Employer alleging, inter alia,
that the Employer had been active in the formation of, and rendered
assistance to, the Petitioner, and had exerted pressure upon its em-
ployees in behalf of the Petitioner.' These charges were withdrawn
by the Intervenor on January 28, 1947.
(4) The Employer, after the election, committed an wnfair labor
practice by reversing its previous position and admitting that certain
group leaders were supervisory employees and ineligible to vote.
Before the election, the Employer had maintained that certain group
leaders were not supervisory employees and were therefore eligible
to vote. The Intervenor disagreed, and challenged the votes of 2 of
then at the time they attempted to vote. When the votes were counted,
it appeared that the Petitioner had obtained 61 votes of a total of 123
valid and challenged ballots-1 less than a majority. Thereupon, the
Employer's representative stated that he was willing to concede that.
the 2 employees in question were supervisory and not entitled to vote,
and that the Intervenor's challenges to their ballots should be sustained.
The Petitioner agreed with the position of the Employer, and the chal-
lenges to the ballots of the 2 employees in question were then sustained
= Case No 3-C-949
Case No 3-C-997.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Field Examine The result was that the Petitioner obtained
a majority of 1 vote-61 ballots having been cast in favor of the Peti-
tioner of a total of 121 valid and challenged. We are of the opinion
that the Employer, in agreeing with the Intervenor's contentions as
to the status of these 2 group leaders, did_ not prejudice the rights of
the Intervenor. Moreover, it is clear that these 2 group leaders were,
in fact, ineligible to vote, since they are supervisory employees within
our usual definition. -
(5) Other employees who were laid off prior to the strike were per-
?Aitted to vote.
'The Intervenor argues that the fact that 13 employees who had been
laid off on January 17, 1946, 4 days before the commencement of the
strike, were permitted to vote without challenge indicates that the 16
laid off employees described in paragraph (1), above, were likewise
eligible. This is a non sequitur. The record reveals that the em-
ployees laid off on January 17, 1947, were laid off solely in consequence
of a temporary surplus of castings, and they consequently cannot be
considered in the same light as those laid off on September 28 and 29,
1945, as a result of 'the Employer's permanent reduction in force.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Regional Director,
we find that the Objections do not raise substantial and material issues
with respect to the election, and they are hereby overruled`
Inasmuch as the Petitioner has won the election. we shall certify it
as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT is HEIIEBY CERTIFIED that Seneca Falls Machine Employees' Associ•
ation has been designated and selected by a majority of all production
and maintenance employees of Seneca Falls Machine Conmpany, Seneca
Falls, New York, including stationary firemen and group leaders, but
excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, engineering
department employees, superintendents, foremen, assistant foremen,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, said organization is the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
4 Although Member Reynolds d ssented from the original Decision and Direction of
Election in this case , he agrees that the Intervenor ' s objections herein do not raise sub-
stantial and material issues with respect to the election , and should be overruled.