stipulation excluded “office clericals” and Board erred in determining as eligible what it termed “plant clerical” employees
How later courts described this case
- stipulation excluded “office clericals” and Board erred in determining as eligible what it termed “plant clerical” employees
- there "the Board was not making an independent determination; it was construing a contract"
- 17-14 vote, with 9 challenged votes
- distinguishing between “plant clericals” and “office clericals”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
PER CURIAM.
The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned for rehearing on the ground that our discussion of the ■challenges with respect to Rita Rollins and Isabelle Palukis relied to some extent on the presence of a comma between the words “office” and “clerical” in the ■stipulation for an election. The stipulation was so printed in the Board’s brief and in the joint appendix but the Board now advises us that the comma was a typographical error. Apart from the comma, we would still regard the stipulation as sufficiently ambiguous with respect to Rollins and Palukis to warrant the employer’s request to submit extrinsic evidence, although this will have to be more probative than if the stipulation had read as we were told. Remand is required in any event since even if the votes of Rollins and Palukis should prove to have been properly counted, the counting of Ursini’s ballot, which was erroneously excluded, and of Rosania’s, which a hearing may show to have been, might produce a tie.
The opinion is modified to the extent indicated; the petition for rehearing is denied.