Adler Metal Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 170 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

170 - DECISIONS- OF RATIONAL LABOR RI~1-LATI©NS BOARD
Adler Metal Products Corporation , and , District- .No. 9,, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
1I- RC-2730. September 23,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election i issued on- April
28,1965, in the above proceeding, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on May 26, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, among the employees
in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the conclusion of the
election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
showed that, of approximately 20 eligible voters, 6 cast ballots, all of
which were challenged.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to the conduct of
the election and conduct affecting the results of the election. After
investigation, the Regional Director, on July 21, 1955, issued his re-
port on challenged ballots and objections to conduct of election, in
which he found the objections to be without merit and recommended
that they be overruled. As to the challenged ballots, the Regional
Director recommended that the challenges as to employees Holmes,
Moore, Thomas, and Cotton be overruled and that the challenges as to
Collins and Jones be sustained. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Employer filed its objections to the election on June 3, 1955.
On June 6, 1955, the chief. field examiner, by letter, requested specific
information pertaining to employment records and detailed- evidence
to support the Employer's challenges and objections.- On June 13,
1955, the Employer's attorney, by letter, replied to this request stating,
in effect, that it was -his understanding that, under Section 102.61 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, only a short statement of reasons
was required in support of objections, and that therefore the Employer
felt it had complied with the necessary requirements. On June 14,
1955, the chief law officer replied to this letter, pointing out that, While
only- a short statement of reasons is sufficient to serve , as an objection,
evidence in support of objections is required in the investigation of
objections and that the burden is on the objecting party to produce all
available evidence in support of the obj ections. At its close, this letter
requested that the information specified in the-June 6 letter be supplied
by June 21,1955. On June 18,1955, the Employer's attorney-replied,
stating that he desired to be of every assistance to the Regional Di-
rector, but that the Employer felt that he was entitled to a heating at
which time he would present evidence necessary to support his objec-
tions and requested that a date for hearing be set.
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
114 NLRB No. 40.
ADLER METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 171
The Regional Director found that the Employer, although twice re-
quested to supply available information or evidence in support of its
objections, persistently refused to furnish such evidence, and that the
Employer took the position that it would produce such evidence only
at a hearing. The Regional Director's investigation failed to disclose
any evidence in support of the objections. Under these circumstances,
he recommended that the objections be overruled.
In its exceptions, the Employer contends, inter alia, that the Re-
gional Director's recommendations should be set aside because the Em-
ployer in its letter of June 18, did not refuse to furnish evidence nor
did it state it would produce evidence only at a hearing.
We find no merit in these exceptions. Under the circumstances set
forth above, we believe that the Regional Director was justified in con-
cluding that the Employer would not furnish evidence in support of its
objections. Moreover, we note that, in its exceptions, the Employer
still fails to advert to any specific evidence in support of its objections
and exceptions.
As we stated in our recent decision in N. B. Liebman & Company,
Inc.: 2
The Board has consistently held that a party filing objections to
an election is obligated-to furnish evidence in support of such
objections, and that, unless such evidence is produced, the Re-
gional Director is not required further to pursue his investiga-
tion of such objections.' Furthermore when, after investigation,
exceptions are filed to the Regional Director's report on objec-
tions, the Board has held that it will overrule such objections un-
less the exceptions advert to specific, substantial evidence con-
troverting the Regional Director's conclusions'
3 Hincher Manufacturing Company, 106 NLRB 1314.
4 Mai nian Baq Company, 103 NLRB 456.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Employer's objections and ex-
ceptions' raise no substantial and material issues with respect to the
election. In this connection, we note that, while we do not reach the
merits of the Employer's objections, the Regional Director's investi-
gation revealed no evidence to support the objections. Accordingly,
the objections are hereby overruled.
The Employer challenged all six ballots cast at the election. The
Regional Director found that Gilfort Holmes, Orlander Moore,
Willey Thomas, and Charles E. Cotton were all employees who were
working for the Employer during the eligibility period and at the
time of the election. As to employee Cotton, he also found that the
allegation that he was a member of the Petitioner, which the Em-
ployer contended disqualified him from voting, had no bearing upon
l
2112 NLRB 88.
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his right to vote. The Regional Director recommended that the chal-
lenges to the ballots of these employees be overruled. The Employer,
generally excepts to these findings and recommendations but adverts
to no specific evidence in support of its exceptions.3 Accordingly, we
adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and overrule the chal-
lenges to the ballots of these four employees 4
As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's recommen-
dations that challenges to the two other ballots cast by George Col-
lins and John Jones be sustained, we sustain these challenges.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Fourteenth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Gilfort Holmes, Orlander Moore, Willey
Thomas, and Charles E. Cotton and serve upon the parties a supple-
mental tally of ballots.]
"Although the Employer excepted to the Regional Director 's recommendation to over-
rule the challenge to the ballot of Collins, we assume that the Employer meant Cotton
and not Collins , in view of the fact that the'Regional Director recommended that the
challenge to the ballot of Collins be sustained.
• National Foundry Company of New York , Inc., 112 NLRB 1214. In connection with
the challenge as to Cotton , we note that union membership has no bearing on an employee's
eligibility to vote. A fundamental purpose of the Act is "protecting the exercise by
workers of full freedom of association , self-organization , and designation of representatives
of their own choosing." ( Section 1.)
Pike Lumber Co., Inc. and International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local No. 83, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-16792.
September 23, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
-Relations Act, a hearing was held before Patrick H. Walker, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Acting Chairman Rodgers and
Members Peterson and Leedom].
Upon the entire,record in.this,case,,the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
- 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
114 NLRB No. 154.