Texas Prudential Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1383 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1383
Petitioner's unit request here is based essentially upon the extent of ,
its organization, and that the Petitioner's purpose here is to obtain
eventual representation of the broader salaried unit. Thus the Peti-
tioner, which appears to have been established for the primary pur-
pose of representing employees of this Employer in salaried units, has
consistently asserted, in the representation proceedings above dis-
cussed, the appropriateness of a broad salaried unit in this plant and-
has sought to secure the representation of such a unit. Under all the.
circumstances present here,. we conclude that the Petitioner, having
failed to win the salaried unit on two previous occasions, is now seek--
ing to gain it on a piecemeal basis. We do not believe that the purposes
of the Act would be effectuated if the Petitioner were permitted to.
utilize the Board's severance policy to accomplish this result.
As we have concluded that the unit sought in this proceeding is
based essentially upon the extent of the Petitioner's organization, we'
find that such unit is inappropriate and shall therefore dismiss the:
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Texas Prudential Insurance Company and Office Employees In--
ternational Union Local 27, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
39-RC-990. May 18, 1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER,
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated January
17,1 956, an election by secret ballot was conducted in this proceeding
on February 9, 1956, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Sixteenth Region among employees of the
Employer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following
the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally
shows that there was 1 void ballot; that 43 votes were cast for the
Petitioner; that 40 votes were cast against the Petitioner; and that.
there were 11 challenged ballots.
Thereafter the Regional Director investigated the 11 challenged
ballots, and, on March 14, 1956, issued and duly served on the parties
a report on challenged ballots and recommendations to the Board,
Both the Employer and the Petitioner thereafter filed exceptions
to the Regional Director's report, and the Employer filed a supporting
brief.
In his report the Regional Director made the findings and recom-
mendations indicated below':
The Regional Director found that the Petitioner challenged the
ballots of three employees; Anthony Scaperlanda; Jr.,- Julia Everett,
115 NLRB No. 219.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Rose Nelson, on the grounds that they were part-time employees.
He further found that Scaperlanda had been employed continuously
by the Employer since August 24, 1955; that he worked from 3 to
31/2 hours per day; that he performed clerical work of the same
type as is performed by full-time clericals; and that he had worked
an average of 20 hours per week for a representative period of 12
weeks prior to the election. The Regional Director found that Everett
had been employed by the Employer as a clerk since August 1953;
that her hours varied to conform with the working hours of her
husband who is on a rotating shift with another firm; and that
Everett had worked an average of 32 hours per week for a representa-
tive period of 12 weeks prior to the election. The Regional Director'
found further that Nelson had worked since April 1, 1953, on a part-
time basis as a clerical employee; that she worked regularly from
8 a. in. to 12 noon, and occasionally worked a full day when needed;
and that she had worked an average of 20 hours per week for a repre-
sentative period of 12 weeks prior to the election. On the basis of
these findings, the. Regional Director concluded that Scaperlanda,
Everett, and Nelson were all employed on a regular part-time basis,
and he accordingly recommended that their ballots be opened and
counted.
The Petitioner has excepted generally to the Regional Director's
findings with respect to Scaperlanda, Nelson,. and Everett; alleging
that the Regional Director "has insufficiently set forth the facts con-
cerning these three employees- and has reached an erroneous conclu-
sion on the facts contained in the Report." The Petitioner, how-
ever, does not specify the facts which were allegedly omitted by the
Regional Director. In these circumstances, we adopt the facts as
found by the Regional Director, finding that these employees are
regular part-time employees eligible to vote in the election' We
therefore overrule the challenges to their ballots.
The Regional Director found that the ballot of Reiner George Rem-
mers was challenged on the ground that Remmers is a supervisor. He
further found that Remmers is classified as a chief clerk,, and works in
the ordinary underwriting department; that his duties consist of
checking insurance applications and underwriting policies; that he
directs the work of three clerical employees on routine matters, but
does not, in connection therewith, exercise independent judgment;
that Remmers has no authority to hire, fire, or discipline the em-
ployees he directs, nor to make effective recommendations with respect
to them; that he makes no recommendations with respect to pay in-
creases; and that he may authorize an ill employee to leave work, but
only if his own supervisors are not in the office. On these facts, the
i See-American-National Insurance-Company, 1-11 NLRB 340,341.
TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY , 1385
Regional Director concluded that Remmers was not a supervisor, and
he recommended that his ballot be opened and counted.
The Petitioner has excepted generally to the findings and con-
clusions of the Regional Director with respect to Remmers, alleging
that "for over a year preceding the instant election, Remmers has been
and is now engaged in and carrying out supervisory duties." The
Petitioner, however, does not advert to any specific evidence not con-
sidered or recounted by the Regional Director. We accordingly af-
firm the Regional Director's findings,2 and hereby overrule the chal-
lenge to Remmers' ballot.
The Regional Director found that the ballots of two employees,
Willie Anderson and Willie Brown, were challenged by the Board
because their names were not on the list of eligible voters. On the
basis of his findings with respect to their duties and their status, the
Regional Director recommended that Anderson's ballot be opened
and counted, and that the challenge to Brown's ballot be sustained.
The Petitioner has excepted to the Regional Director's conclusions
with respect to Anderson's ballot; and the Employer has excepted to
the Regional Director's conclusion with respect to Brown's ballot.
In his report, the Regional Director found specifically that "the
names of Willie Anderson and Willie Brown were deleted from the
list of eligible voters prior to the election by agreement between the
Employer and the Petitioner." Neither the Petitioner nor the Em-
ployer has excepted to this latter finding. It is contrary to the Board's
practice to permit, in the postelection stage of a representation pro-
ceeding, the litigation of eligibility matters which were settled be-
fore the election by stipulation or by agreement of the parties.' Ac-
cordingly, the challenges to the ballots of Anderson and Brown are
hereby sustained.
The Regional Director found that the ballots of Edna Mae Bul-
lacher, Gertrude Johnson, Marie McFarland, and Louise Holly were
challenged by the Petitioner on the grounds that these employees are
employed in confidential capacities. The Regional Director found
that Bullacher is secretary to the Employer's treasurer; that her
duties consist of typing correspondence "to mortgage banks and agents
who submit loans, and other clerical work concerning investments" ;
and that she does not have access to labor relations material. He fur-
ther found that Johnson is secretary to the manager of the ordinary
underwriting department; that Johnson takes dictation, types cor-
respondence, and does other general stenographic work; that she oc-
casionally performs work for the department's assistant manager and
2 See F. H. Reeves & Sons, Inc., 114 NLRB 1243 ; South Florida Liquor Distributors,
Inc., of Ta npa, 113 NLRB 109.
a C-ulf States Asphalt Company, 115 NLRB 100; Stanley Aviation Corporation, 112
NLRB 461.
J386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
_for two other underwriting employees, and that she does not handle
-any material relating to labor relations. The Regional Director also
found that McFarland is a stenographer for Mr. J. Solari, agency sec-
retary-ordinary agency department; that McFarland takes dictation,
types correspondence and insurance forms, and performs other clerical
duties; and that McFarland does not have access to confidential ma-
terials concerning labor relations. The Regional Director found fur-
ther that Holly is secretary to T. W. Dum1, director of agencies; that
.Holly takes dictation, types, keeps records, and performs other clerical
duties; and that she does not have access to material relating to labor
relations.
On the basis of his findings, the Regional Director concluded that
Bullacher, Johnson, McFarland, and Holly are not confidential em-
ployees, and he recommended that their ballots be opened and counted.
The Petitioner has excepted to the Regional Director's findings and
conclusions with respect to these employees, alleging generally that in
each instance the Regional Director has insufficiently set forth the
:facts concerning their duties and, functions and those of their super-
visors. The Petitioner, however, does not advert to any specific evi-
•clence not considered by the Regional Director with respect to Bul-
lacher, Johnson, McFarland, or Holly. In these circumstances, we
hereby overrule the challenges to their ballots .4
The Regional Director found that the ballot of Margaret Orr was
-also challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that she was em-
-ployed in a confidential capacity. On the basis of factual- findings
set forth in his report, the Regional Director concluded that Orr's
work was of a confidential nature, and he recommended that the
-challenge :to her,,ballot 'be' sustained.•,The, Employer^•has -excepted
to the Regional Director's conclusion that Orr is a `confidential- em-
ployee., At this time we shall not rule on the challenge to Orr's
ballot.
We shall direct the opening and counting of those ballots as to
which we have herein overruled challenges; and we shall further
direct that the Regional Director shall thereafter issue a revised tally
of ballots. In the event it then appears that Orr's ballot cannot affect
the election's results, and if it also appears that the Petitioner has
received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall
direct that the Petitioner be certified as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.
If, on the other hand the revised tally shows that the Petitioner has
not received a majority of the votes, and if it also appears that Orr's
ballot cannot affect the election's results, we shall direct that the
Regional Director issue acertification of results of election. If the
See, The B . F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722.
COPPUS ENGINEERING CORPORATION 1387
revised tally indicates that Orr's ballot may be determinative of the
results of the election, the Board will, upon being so advised by the
Regional Director, give further consideration to the disposition of
0rr's ballot.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this decision,
open and count the ballots of employees Scaperlanda, Everett, Nelson,
Remmers, Bullacher, Johnson, McFarland, and Holly and serve upon
the parties a revised tally of ballots. If the ballot of Margaret Orr
-affects the results of the election, the Regional Director is hereby
,directed to advise the Board in order that appropriate action may, be
taken.]
[The Board ordered the above-entitled matter referred to the
Regional Director for disposition as provided for herein.]
CCoppus Engineering Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-2010. May 21, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 27, 1956, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Re-
port attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner. -
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
;of the'.NationaT Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Coppus Engi-
neering Corporation, Worcester, Massachusetts, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
i The Respondent . also requested . oral argument. The request is denied as the record,
including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and the positions of
the parties. - - - - - - - - -
;_ _ 115 NLRB No.. 220.