The Guiberson Corp., 260 (1958)

They also have the authority to warn, both verbally and in writing, and to discipline, the employees working under them, and to handle grievances at step I of the grievance procedure established by the collective-bargaining agreement. The record is unclear as to the power of the operating supervisors to discharge. In the past, they have discharged messengers for excessive absenteeism and poor job performance, as well as for violations of rules, unavailability for work, and insubordination. However, a confidential' memorandum sent to all supervisors in July 1957 requires that discharges for poor performance be effected through the main office. The record is clear, however, that even if the power'to discharge is-presently so limited, the operating supervisors have the authority to, and do in fact, effectively recommend such discharges.

We find that the branch office operating supervisors are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, and are excluded from the previously certified bargaining unit.

[The Board granted the parties' request for clarification of the Board's April 16, 1954, certification and found that the branch office operating supervisors are supervisors as defined in the Act and are excluded from the previously certified unit.] The G-uiberson Corporation and United Steelworkers of America,

AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Ca$e No.16-R c -164. J_u7y 31,19'54

DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RIF, OF ELECTION

Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon -consent election executed on August 21, 1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 2^; 1957, under the supervision of'the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, among the employees in the appropriate unit set forth in the stipulation. 'Upon completion of-the relection, 'the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 289 eligible voters, '286 valid- votes were cast. Of these,. 119 were cast in favor of the Petitioner; 144'were cast against the Petitioner; and 23 were challenged.' On September 30, 1967, the Petitioner timely filed objections to the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on January 6, 1958, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections to election, in which he recommended that certain objections be over1 The challenged, ballets were thus insufficient in number to affect - the results of the election.

121 NLRB No. 45.

ruled and that others be sustained and the election set aside 2 The Employer timely filed exceptions to the report.

The Board has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the objections, the report on objections to election, as supplemented, and the exceptions filed by the Employer. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes ,the, following findings of fact :

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.

3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Secti6n2 (6) and (7) of the Act.

4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.

   All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its oil field equipment manufacturing plant at Dallas, Texas, including shipping and receiving employees, truckdrivers, inspectors, and hourly paid laboratory employees, but excluding cafeteria employees, shop clerical employees, office porters and maids, office clerical employees, professional and technical employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.

5. The Petitioner filed five objections to the conduct of the election.

   The Regional Director recommended that objections 1, 3, and 4 be overruled. As no exceptions were filed to such recommendations, we adopt them and hereby overrule the objections involved.

   In objection 2, the Petitioner alleged that the Employer notified employees that it would not negotiate regarding their Christmas bonus if the Union, won the election. In objection 5, the Petitioner alleged that the'Employer informed employees that they 'stand to lose' such benefits as their profit-sharing plan. The Regional Director's investigation of these objections discloses, the utilization herein of considerable preelection campaign propaganda. In one of its circulars, the Petitioner advocated a...