The Hoosier Crown Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 1348 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE HOOSIER CROWN CORPORATION and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. R-5728 (13-R-1878)
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
DIRECTION
December 16, 1943
On August 16, 1943, the Natonal Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding.'
Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on September 15, 1943, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois).
On October 5, 1943, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article
III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 2, as amended,2 issued and duly served upon the parties
his Report on Ordered Election.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported
as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters ------------------------ 67
Total ballots cast--- ----------------------------------------- 65
Total ballots challenged -------------------------------------- 8
Total void ballots --------------------------------------------- 0
Total valid votes counted ------------------------------------- 57
Votes cast for American Federation of Labor----------------- 29
Votes east against American Federation of Labor-------------- 28
In his Report on Ordered Election, the Regional Director recom-
mended that seven of the challenges be sustained and that the challenge
protesting the vote of one Sam Gilliland be overuled and the ballot
opened and counted.
Subsequent to the election, the Company filed objections to the Re-
port on Ordered Election, contending that the seven challenges which
the Regional Director had recommended be sustained, should be over-
ruled . The American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union,
filed no objections to the Report on Ordered Election. On October 30,
1 51 N . L R. B 1353
2 The Board 's Rules and Regulations have since, been revised and reissued as Seiies 3.
53 N. L. R. B, No. 246
1348
THE HOOSIER CROWN CORPORATION 1349
1943, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties
his Report on Objections to Election, in which he recommended that
all the Company's objections with reference to challenges be over-
ruled and again recommended that the challenged ballot of Sam
Gilliland be opened upon the ground that this ballot might affect the
outcome of the election.
Upon the Report on Ordered Election, the Objections to Election
Report, the Report on Objections to Election, and the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following supplemental findings of fact
with respect to the challenged ballots :
Emery Gardner, Floyd Hedrick, Samuel C. Rowland, and Robert
0. Jones were challenged by the Union upon the ground that they
were supervisory employees and ineligible to vote. In his Report on
Objections to the Election, the Regional Director recommended that
the challenges be sustained and the objections of the Company thereto
be overruled. The record reveals that during the formal hearing on
the case, the Company and the Union stipulated the names of cer-
tain foremen whom they agreed should not be included in the unit.
Gardner, Hedrick, Rowland, and Jones were among the names so
stipulated, and at the hearing witnesses for the Company testified
that those four men were supervisors. Prior to the hearing and
subsequent to the issuance of the Direction of Election, all of the
above four men were called to foremen's meetings in the plant to
receive instructions from attorneys of the Company. In addition
thereto, Gardner, Hedrick, and Rowland when challenged admitted
that they were supervisors. With respect to Jones, the Company
objects to the challenge of this voter mainly because Jones has re-
cently been working alone. In the Report on Ordered Election,
however, the Regional Director stated that the Company would con-
cede Jones to be a foreman if it hired other employees in his depart-
ment and this statement has not been denied by the Company. Fur-
thermore, Jones was one of the supervisors called to a foremen's
meeting subsequent to the issuance of the Direction of Election. In
view of the substantial evidence establishing the status of the four
mentioned employees as foremen, we find that they are supervisory
employees within our usual definition of the term and ineligible to
vote. Accordingly, we sustain the challenges to the voters aforesaid
and direct that their ballots be not counted.
Ed S. Hall was challenged by the Union upon the ground that he
was a supervisory employee. The Company contends that lie has
,been confused with another employee by the name of Edwin Hall
and that the testimony of Foreman Runyon at the hearing had refer-
ence to such other employee. Notwithstanding the issue raised by
the Company as to the two Ed Halls. the voter' Hall has stated that
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he was the foreman in his department, that he was so known and
considered as such by the Company , and that he attended foremen's
meetings in the plant. Since the objections were filed, the voter has
reiterated his previous statements in the presence of the attorney for
the Company and the Field Examiner investigating the objections.
In his Report on Objections to the Election, the Regional Director
recommended that the challenge to the voter Hall be sustained and
that the objections of the Company thereto be overruled. We find
that the voter Hall is a supervisory employee and ineligible to vote;
the challenge to his vote is sustained and it is hereby directed that
his ballot be not counted.
Willis Dalrymple was challenged by the Union on the ground that
he was a supervisory employee. The Regional Director recommended
in his Report on Objections that the challenge be sustained and the
Company's objections thereto be overruled. The Company's claim
that this employee has no supervisory duties is contradicted by state-
ments of Dalrymple as well as by those of another employee . During
the recent investigation of the Objections , Dalrymple , in the presence
of Company counsel , stated to the Examiner that he had been re-
quested by Dean Paddock, an office clerk , to attend a meeting. Pad-
dock admitted that she had entered the plant to inform Dalrymple
and other foremen to attend the meeting. Questions asked by the
attorney for the Company caused both Dalrymple and Paddock to
change their original statements with the result that Dalrymple
denied that he was a foreman , denied that he attended a foremen's
meeting and further denied that he had so informed the Board's
agent when challenged . Paddock likewise became evasive and as-
serted that she was not sure that she had called Dalrymple to a
foremen's meeting . We find that Dalrymple is a supervisory em-
ployee and ineligible to vote in the election . We sustain the challenge
to the voter aforesaid and direct that his ballot be not counted.
DuWayne ShNton was challenged by the Union upon the ground
that this employee had quit and worked elsewhere and that by reason
thereof he was ineligible to vote within the meaning of the Board's
Decision and Direction of Election . In his Report on Objections to
the Election , the Regional Director recommended that the challenge
be sustained and that the Company's objection thereto be overruled.
In support of its objection , the Company states that no separation
report had been made as to this employee and that his card had re-
mained on the time-card rack from the time he left the plant on
August 5, 1943, until he returned on September 7. The investigation
reveals that Shelton's leaving on August 5 was occasioned by illness;
that he thereafter worked for another Company from August 16 until
September 4, 1943; that on September 7, 1943, at the request of the
THE HOOSIER CROWN CORPORATION 1351
Company he returned and was reinstated to his former employment,
in which he continued until September 18, 1943; that on September 20,
1943, he again left the Company's employ and resumed his work with
the Company by which he was employed from August 16 to September
4, 1943. The, election occurred on September 15, 1943.
Since it appears that as of the date of the election, Shelton was
actually employed by the Company and was merely absent because of
illness as of August 14, 1943, the pay-roll date from which eligibility
was determined, we find that he was eligible to vote. The limitation
in the Direction is intended to exclude only those employees who after
the date of eligibility terminate their employment and are not em-
ployed by the Company on the election date.3 We shall, therefore, in
accordance with the foregoing interpretation and our present practice
in this respect,' declare the ballot valid.
Sam Gilliland was challenged by the Union upon the ground that he
is in charge during the absence of his foreman. Both the Company
and the voter claimed that lie had no supervisory duties. The investi-
gation reveals that this employee sorts bottle caps along with two other
employees and has no supervisory or disciplinary power or authority.
In his Report on Ordered Election, the Regional Director recom-
mended that the challenge be overruled. Neither the Union nor the
Company has filed objections to the recommendations of the Regional
Director. We find, accordingly, that Gilliland was eligible to vote
and shall declare his ballot valid.
For reasons indicated above, we conclude and find that DuWayne
Shelton and Sam Gilliland were eligible to vote in the election and
their ballots are hereby declared valid. Since the results of the election
may be affected by these two challenged ballots, we shall direct that
they be *opened and counted.
DIRECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED, that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Hoosier Crown
Corporation, Crawfordsville, Indiana, the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of
the Board set forth above, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and
11, of said Rules and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date
3 See Mattcr of Eniseo Deri ick cC Equipment Co., 51 N L R. B 959
4 The interpretation heieinabove set forth has been expressly incorporated into current
decisions by appropriate language in conformity therewith.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of this Direction, open and count the ballots of DuWayne Shelton and
Sam Gilliland, and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the
parties in this proceeding a Supplemental Election Report, embodying
therein his findings and his recommendations as to the results of the
balloting.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction.