The Tetrad Co., Inc., 203 (1958)
THE TETRAD CO., INC. 203 that their prospects of recall are no better than those of the employees on the 'laid-off for lack of work' list. Accordingly, the 'excused absence' employees, too, are ineligible to vote.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 To the extent that the Board held otherwise in the above-cited case involving another plant of the Employer, we hereby overrule it.
The Tetrad Co., Inc. and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
2-RC-9371. November 21, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election,' dated June 10, 1958, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 1, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the close of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that 37 votes were cast for the Petitioner, 41 votes were cast against the Petitioner, and 13 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. As the challenged ballots were sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, in accordance with the provisions of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 7, investigated the challenges as well as the objections, and on October 6, 1958, issued and duly served on the parties his report on challenged ballots and objections to the election. In his report, he recommended that one of the objections 2 be sustained, that the election be set aside, and that the challenges to 9 of the 13 ballots be sustained.' Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's findings as to the challenged ballots. The Employer also filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's finding with respect to the objections.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a threemember panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
3 The Regional Director did not deem it necessary to consider the other objections in view of his recommendation to set the election aside.
3 The Regional Director did not deem it necessary to resolve the four remaining challenged ballots, because...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP