American Publishing Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 23, 1958121 N.L.R.B. 115 (N.L.R.B. 1958) Copy Citation AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 115 American Publishing Corporation , Detroit Post Printing Com- pany, Highland Parker Printers, Inc., Michigan Rotary Press, Inc., Unique Press, and Wyandotte Printing Co. and Interna- tional Mailers " Union, Petitioner Accurate Mailing & Distributing Service, American Mailers and Binders, Cherie Printing Co., Detroit Gravure Corporation, Detroit Labor News, Gratiot -Herald , Inc., Jourdan Co., Inc., Michigan Advertising Distributing Co., Michigan Catholic Co., Reliable Mailing Service Co., and Safran Printing Co. and International Mailers Union , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 7-RC-3336 and 7-RC-3337.1 July 23, 1908 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. These petitions seek multiemployer units comprised of mailers employed by firms engaged primarily in job printing and mailing for customers in (a) those shops using press equipment which oper- ates on a rotary principle 3 (Case No. 7-RC-3336) ; and (b) those shops which use flatbed or offset equipment4 (Case No. 7-RC-3337). The Petitioner and the Employers contend that since the combined 1 These two cases were originally consolidated for purposes of hearing with The Evening News Association, d/b/a Detroit News, et al , 7-RC-3335. The latter case was thereafter severed by order of the hearing officer, and the Board 's Decision and Direction of Election therein was issued on November 5, 1957 ( 119 NLRB 345). 2 International Typographical Union and Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 , International Typographical Union, hereinafter referred to collectively as the Intervenors or Individually as ITU and DMU-ITU, respectively , were permitted to Intervene over the objection of the Petitioner ; and Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 , International Mailers Union, hereinafter referred to as DMU-IMU , was permitted to intervene over the objection of the other Intervenors . Since DMU-ITU had contracts with the Employers which expired shortly after the conclusion of the hearing herein, it was entitled to intervene , notwithstanding its failure to comply with Section ' 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act . The Evening News Association, supra, and cases cited therein. The ITU, as the parent of the contracting union , was also entitled to intervene , although It is likewise not in compliance with Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) of the Act . The Evening News Association, supra. More- over, we shall place DMU-ITU on the ballot in the elections directed herein , in view of the Board 's recent decision in Concrete Joists & Products Co., 120 NLRB 1542, by which Chairman Leedom and Member Bean , who dissented therein, consider themselves bound However , should this Intervenor win the election , we shall merely certify the arithmetical results. DMU-IMU was named in the petitions as the Local which will represent the employees in the event the Petitioner should win an election , and during the hearing the Petitioner requested that in the event elections are directed the name of DMU-IMU appear on the ballots Its interest is therefore apparent , its right to participate in this proceeding is clear, and we shall place its name on the ballots rather than that of International Mailers Union. 8 Hereinafter referred to as the rotary shops. * Hereinafter referred to zs 'he conimeicial shops. 121 NLItB No. 21. 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operations of each employer group meet the requirements set forth in the Jonesboro case,' the Board should assert jurisdiction. ITU and DMU-ITU, on the other hand, contend that the only appropriate units are separate units for each Employer, and that, since some of the Employers in each case admittedly do not meet the Board's current jurisdictional standards, the instant petitions should be dismissed as to most of the Employers on jurisdictional grounds. Inasmuch as we hereinafter find that the multiemployer units sought are appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining,' we find no merit in the ITU's contention. Under these circumstances, the relevant criterion in determining the Board's jurisdiction is the effect upon interstate commerce of the combined operations of all of the Employers in each unit.' Accordingly, as the rotary shop Employers had a combined direct inflow of over $500,000, as well as combined indirect outflow of over $100,000,8 during the year preceding the hearing, and as the commercial shop Employers had a combined direct outflow of over $50,000, for the same period, we find that the Em- ployers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction 'in these cases. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employers.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act." 4. The only dispute in each of these cases is as to the scope of the unit. The Petitioner seeks 2 multiemployer units of mailers," one consisting of the employees of the 6 rotary shops and the other con- sisting of the employees of the 11 commercial shops. The Petitioner contends that there has been a bargaining history on a multiemployer basis which renders such unit appropriate. ITU and DMU-ITU take the position that the recently expired contracts were negotiated 5 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. 6 See paragraph 4, infra. 7 Moltinelli, Santoni d Freytes , S. en C., d/b/a Panaderia to Reguladora and Panaderia la Francesa , et at , 118 NLRB 1010. 8 Whippany Motor Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 52. v The status of DMU-ITU and of DMU-IMU as labor organizations was contested by the Petitioner and by the ITU, respectively . The record reveals that both organizations exist for the purpose of bargaining collectively on behalf of their members with employers concerning wages, hours , and other conditions of employment . Accordingly, we find that they are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. The Evening News Association, supra. 10 These petitions were filed during the term of the contracts between DMU-ITU and each of .the employer groups The Petitioner contended that a schism existed within the ranks of DMU-ITU, whereas ITU and DMU-ITU argued that the contracts barred any determination of representatives. Inasmuch as those contracts have now expired, we find it unnecessary to pass upon these contentions See The Evening News Association, supra. n In the alternative the Petitioner requested that, if the Board did not find the multi- employer units appropriate , separate elections be directed in single -employer units. AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 117 on a single-employer basis. and that, therefore, only separate units for each Employer are appropriate. The Employers did not state their position during the hearing, but in a brief filed by counsel represent- ing all of the rotary shop Employers and most of the commercial shop Employers, those Employers support the Petitioner's position that multiemployer units are appropriate. DMU ITU has represented the mailers involved in these cases for a number of years. Prior to 1947, a single contract was negotiated and signed covering all mailers employed at both the rotary and the commercial shops. From 1947 to 1956, negotiations were conducted separately for the two types of shops, but all agreements were oral. In April 1956, DMU-ITU secured 2 written contracts, one with the rotary shop Employers who are involved in Case No. 7-RC-3336, and the other with the 11 commercial shop Employers named in Case No. 7-RC-3337.12 ,These contracts were effective from April 30, 1956, to January 31,1958. Five of the six rotary shops and 6 of the 11 commercial shops are members of the Graphic Arts Association, which is a formal associa- tion established for the overall purpose of taking any steps necessary to better the status of the industry. This Association is an "umbrella type" organization made up of several different groups, of which the rotary group is one, but it has never organized a commercial group. The Association conducts negotiations for other employer groups, consisting of both members and nonmembers, with other unions. In those instances, the Association has required written authorizations from both members and nonmembers i3 and has been a signatory to the contracts. However, the Association did not require written au- thorizations with respect to the negotiations for the contracts covering the mailers, assertedly because of the small number of employers in- volved and the ease of communicating with them." The Association was not a signatory to the contracts. In negotiating the mailer con- tracts, the Association's manager attended all meetings and performed the functions of secretary, all communications between DMU-ITU and the Employers prior to the actual signing of the contracts going through him,'5 but he apparently did not participate in the discussions. v Each of these contracts consists of a single document executed by DMU-ITU and all Employers in the respective group. 13 None of the nonmembers involved in the instant ease has been represented by the Association in such negotiations with other unions and, therefore , none has ever exe- cuted written authorizations in connection with the other negotiations. 14 In contrast with the small group involved herein, there may, be as many as 135 em- ployers represented in negotiating one agreement covering a particular craft group. Is Thus, Whaling , the Association 's manager, received a letter from DMII ITU advis- ing that the old contract was about to expire and offering to meet "with you" to negotiate an agreement . This letter contained no address but merely bore the salutation "Gentlemen" and, at the bottom , a list of all the Employers . It was not known whether each Employer also received this letter . All negotiating meetings were apparently arranged by whaling, who notified the Employers of the scheduled dates , and after the final meeting he forwarded to DMII ITU, on behalf of each group of Employers, the 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The 1956 negotiations with respect to the mailers followed the same procedure as had been customary in the informal negotiations of prior years. The rotary and commercial Employers met jointly with the union at an initial meeting to discuss the economic provisions, such as wages and overtime, relating to all the shops.' After the joint meet- ing, the rotary group and the union met separately to reach agreement, and the commercial Employers thereafter met with the union, adopted the rotary shop agreement to the extent it was applicable to the com- mercial shop operations, and negotiated concerning the minor matters pertaining to their particular type of operations. The Rotary Shops Prior to the initial negotiations meeting, all the rotary Employers met and elected as their chairman and spokesman Oscar Wagner, the general manager of Highland Parker Printers." • At the same time, these Employers discussed whatever proposals they were to present in the negotiations. In addition, they held separate discussions during the negotiations in order to iron out any differences among themselves and present a unified position in the negotiations. Wagner testified that in case of any disagreement, the view of the majority prevailed.17 During the negotiations, Wagner spoke for all of the participating Employers, some of whom did not attend the meetings. To sustain their contention that bargaining by the rotary group was on a single-employer basis, the Intervenors rely on the facts that : the negotiations were under the auspices of, but not with, the Associa- tion; one of the Employers is not a member of the Association; any of the Employers could probably withdraw at any time before executing the agreement if the group took a position "which would be impossible for him to live with" or could refuse to execute the final agreement if it were "utterly unacceptable"; and aside from the negotiations, Wagner met with DMU-ITU only as an individual employer and not as the representative of the group. On the facts set forth above, we agree that the Association was not authorized to bargain on behalf of the Employer in negotiating the 1956 contract. This, however, does not preclude a finding that the Employers acted as an informal group composed of the 5 members proposed wage scale and agreement for the commercial shops, and for the rotary shops as worked out at the prior meetings. Subsequently Whaling was notified by DMTJ-ITU's president that the union's membership had accepted the proposed wage scales, and Whaling informed all the Employers of that fact Later Whaling again wrote to all the Employ- ers informing them that the DMU-ITU president "called today and stated he will be calling upon you within the next few days to secure your signatures on the new contracts." Thereafter, DMU-ITU's president visited each Employer individually and each executed the contract applicable to his type of operation 1e Wagner is also chairman of the rotary section of the Association. 17 Unique Press, the sole nonmember of the Association, attended these meetings and expressed its views on the problems under discussion. AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 119 and 1 nonmember of the Association.18 And the fact that negotiations were by such an informal group rather than a formal association does not preclude a finding that the informal group constitutes a single employer for the purposes of collective bargaining.19 Nor is a finding required that there is no multiemployer bargaining history because, once negotiations were concluded and the final agreement drawn up, each Employer executed the contract itself rather than delegate the right to execute the agreement to a representative with power to bind the group 20 The record herein clearly shows participation by the six rotary shops in joint bargaining with DMU-ITU21 In addition to the fact that the Employers presented a joint position in bargaining,22 the contract was signed by all the participating Employers as a single document .21 The contract, although describing the Employers as "parties of the first part," thereafter refers to them collectively as "party of the first part," "the Employer," or "the Office"; speaks of "the agreement" of the parties and "either party',' to the contract; The fact that such an informal group includes employers who are and who are not members of an existing association is irrelevant to any determination of the appropriate- ness of the unit. However , it may be noted that, even if the Employers had bargained as an Association group, we have previously held that a multiemployer unit may be appro- priate although composed of both members and nonmembers of an association where the nonmember has, as here , either delegated its bargaining authority to the association or has participated in the joint negotiations . See, e. g., Highway Transport Association of Upstate New York, Inc., et al., 116 NLRB 1718 1720 , and Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., et at., 81 NLRB 224; 229. zs The Evening News Association, supra, and cases cited therein, footnote 9. 20 The Evening News Association, supra, and cases cited therein, footnote 10. m Unlike the case of Miller Shingle Co ., 114 NLRB 1217 , which is cited by the Inter- venors in their brief as being comparable to the instant case, the Employers herein never announced any intention to bargain individually . Hence, the question to be determined here is whether the Employers ' conduct indicates their intention to be bound by-multi- employer bargaining rather than , as in the Miller case, whether they engaged in any conduct inconsistent with a contrary announced intention. 23 Intervenors , in their brief , cite four cases in support of the proposition , stated there, that "the mere fact that there was consultation among the employers or that they signed the same contract is not indicative of true multiemployer bargaining." Without consid- ering the validity of this proposition, we note that we base our decision in the instant case on more than those "mere facts ." However , we are constrained to note that none of the cases cited by the, Intervenor stands for the rule stated and none involves facts at all analogous to those under consideration here. A • single example will suffice to show that they are inapposite. Thus, in Berghuis Construction Company , 116 NLRB 1297, where the intervenor opposed petitions for two single -employer units , the Board noted, inter alla, that one of the employers involved had never adopted or signed the associa- tion contract, on which the intervenor apparently relied to show a history of multi- employer bargaining , and that the other employer involved had clearly indicated its intention not to be bound by that contract. m With respect to the probable right of any Employer to withdraw from the group any time up to execution of the contract , no Employer did in fact withdraw . - Rather, as indicated above, the Employers - compromised whatever disagreements may have arisen among them , and the assumption that they could or would withdraw is based on mere Speculation. Also, we have held that the fact that a committee negotiating with a union had 'no authority to bind the employer and that the employer reserved the right to give final approval to any ' agreement reached through negotiations is not controlling and does not alone justify a finding that a single-employer unit is appropriate . Atlas Storage Division, P & V Atlas Industrial Center, Inc., 100 NLRB 1443. And see United Produe= tions of America, 111 NLRB 390. 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and provides that "if either party wishes to propose a change in any of the conditions . . . it shall notify the other party . . . in writ- ing...." The agreement provides, inter alia, uniform hours, wages, working conditions, holidays, vacations, sick and accident insurance, and general working rules and regulations for employees of all the Employers. The provision for sick and accident insurance obviously requires joint selection by all the Employers of a single insurance company and the issuance of a single policy. Further, the contract provides for a joint standing committee composed of two members of the union and two representatives to be named by the Employers, to which are to be referred for settlement all disputes arising out of the operation of the agreement, regarding discharge cases, and con- cerning the interpretation of any portion of the agreement 24 In addition to the collective bargaining contract, the rotary Employers, together with the commercial Employers, are party to a retirement benefit plan covering employees of all those Employers, which plan was negotiated jointly with DMU-ITU and three other printing trades union. On these facts, we reject the Intervenors' contention that bargaining with the rotary Employers was on a single-employer basis '21 and find that a single multiemployer unit-of the employees of the rotary Em- ployers is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Commercial Shops The commercial shops appear to have acted together, but in a very informal manner. Prior to the initial joint negotiating meeting the commercial Employers informally designated as their chairman an official of one of the nonmember Employers. The extent of the chair- man's authority to speak for all the commercial Employers or for those not present is not clear. At least some of the commercial Em- ployers met with such chairman prior to the initial negotiation meet- ing to discuss their approach to the coming negotiations. Also, about 5 or 10 minutes before the meeting between the commercial Employers and DMU-ITU, the chairman met separately with the commercial Employers who were present at that time. At no time did all com- mercial Employers meet to discuss the contract or the problems grow- ing out of it, and at least one Employer, Chene Printing Company, never participated in any discussions with any of the other Employers u The Intervenors' last contention, I. e., that after negotiations were concluded Wagner met with the Union only as a representative of an individual Employer, is without merit as a basis for finding that negotiations were not on a group basis, inasmuch as this term of the contract provided a means of administering its provisions on a joint basis so that there would seem to be no need for Wagner to act for the group. 25 Since the Intervenors are not contending that they desire to change the pattern of bargaining which has obtained in the past, we need not consider the effect such a desire would have upon the appropriateness of the unit herein. AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 121 and never attended any negotiating meetings. On the other hand, all Employers were aware that the negotiations were in process, were kept informed of the progress of the negotiations, and they, all signed the contract without questioning its terms. The discussion concerning the provisions of the rotary shop con- tract is equally applicable to the terms of the commercial shops agree- ment. In sum, the Employers are referred to collectively as a single party, there are provided uniform working conditions and benefits, and there is established a joint standing committee of 2 members of the union and 2 representatives named by the Employers to determine disputes between the contracting parties. In addition, it is noted that the sick and accident insurance policy has been carried by the commercial Employers in accordance with the contract requirement and that all claims arising thereunder have been administered and .handled by the Association. Essential to any finding that a multiemployer unit is appropriate are : (1) a controlling history of bargaining on a multiemployer basis for a substantial period of time,26 and (2) an unequivocal manifesta- tion by the individual employers of a desire to be bound in future collective bargaining by group rather than individual action?' And, as noted above, the facts that negotiations were by an informal group rather than by a formal association and- that, once negotiations were concluded and the final agreement drawn up, each Employer executed the contract itself rather than delegate the right to execute the agree- ment to a representative with power to bind the group does not require the finding that there is no multiemployer bargaining history 2s On the basis of the manner of their bargaining for the April 1956 contract, the terms of that contract, and the central administration of its terms, we find that the commercial Employers have met the above requirements 29 and have acted as an informal group 30 Thus, al- though not every Employer participated in the negotiations to the same extent and some failed to attend any of the meetings," there was no history of individual bargaining prior thereto,32 the negotia- tions resulted in a single contract 33 containing all the terms and ' Arden Farms, et al., 117 NLRB 318; Cleveland Builders Supply Co., et al., 90 NLRB 923. 21 Chvecago Metropolitan Hom@ Builders . Association, 119 NLRB 1184, and cases cited therein. 21 See footnotes 19 and 20, supra. " The Intervenors raised certain contentions which either specifically or apparently related to both the rotary and the commercial shops. These have been disposed of supra. See footnotes 18, 21, 22, and 23., 80 As in the case of the rotary shops, we agree that the Association acted merely as sec- retary and was not authorized to bargain for the commercial employers. '1 See Electrical Contractors of Troy and Vicinity, 116 NLRB 354, 358 "Cf Miron Busldsng Products Co., Inc., et dl., 116 NLRB 1406; Rainbo Bread Co., 92 NLRB 181. 83 Molinelli, Santoni & Freytes, S. en C., et al, 118 NLRB 1010. 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conditions covering the operations of all the Employers'34 all com- munications were directed to, and handled by, the Association and all Employers were notified that negotiations were in process and were kept informed of the progress made, 35 and all the Employers executed the agreement without modification 36 Further, questions arising under the contract have been administered by the joint stand- ing committee, the sick and accident insurance has been administered by the Association, and the Employers are party to a centrally ad- ministered welfare fund 31 We reach this conclusion despite the fact that, approximately 6 months after the effective date of the April 1956 contract, some of the commercial Employers signed "supplemental agreements" with DMU-IMU, which were identical to the April contract but sub- stituted IMU for ITU throughout the agreement; and that admittedly these were individual actions of those Employers. Unlike the Inter, venors, we do not view these "supplemental agreements" as relating back to evidence the Employers' intentions in April. Rather, we consider those agreements, at most, to have been untimely attempts to withdraw from the group bargaining. An employer may properly withdraw from an existing multiemployer unit provided it clearly evinces at an appropriate time its intention to pursue an individual course of bargaining."' The attempts in the instant case, made after the first 6 months of a 2-year contract, were clearly untimely.39 More- over, the circumstances of this case also indicate that the Employers did not unequivocally intend to abandon the historical course of group bargaining.40 In view of the above, we reject the Intervenors' contention that bargaining with the commercial Employers was on a single-employer basis,41 and find that a single multiemployer unit of the employees of the commercial Employers is appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. However, since Safran Printing Company and the Detroit Labor News no longer have employees in the categories involved herein and do not anticipate resuming their mailing opera- tions in the foreseeable future, we shall not include them in the unit. 84 The Eventing News Assn., supra ; Puerto Rico Steamship Association , 110 NLRB 418. 88 Cf Ra•nbo Bread Co , supra , at p 183 80 Electrical Contractors of Troy and Vicinity„ supra. • 87 Puerto Rico Steamship Association supra 89 York Transfer & Storage Cc , 107 NLRB 139, 142. 8" McAnary & Welter, Inc, 115 NLRB 1029; Engineerinq Metal Products Corporation, 92 NLRB 823 Cf Leland J. Paschich and George H. Cherry, d/b/a Economy Shade Company , 91 NLRB 1552. 40 See , e. g. Enq'neering Metal Products Corporation , supra We note, among other things, that 3 of the 5 signatories to the October 1950 "supplemental agreements" explic- itly take the position in this proceeding that the multlemployer unit is appropriate, while the remaining 2 do not assert the desire to bargain individually. 41 See footnote 25, supra AMERICAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION 123 The parties agree as to the categories to be included in the units. We find, substantially in accordance with such agreement," that the following employees constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (1) All employees doing work appertaining to mailing, such as addressing, tagging, stamping, labeling, bundling, or wrapping; cutting lists or wrappers (including galley work) ; operating stencil machines, filing or correcting stencils; sorting, routing, dissecting, or marking wrappers; taking bundles or papers from conveyors or escalators; stacking, jogging, folding; handling of bundles or mail sacks; distributing, counting of papers (leaving or returning) ; tying by hand or power machine ; sacking, delivering papers to mailers, carriers, agents, or newsboys; inserting or dispatching of papers, envelopes, magazines, or circulars; whether done by hand or power machines, including auxiliary machines used in preparatory work for making plates, stencils, or any devices that may be used in placing names and addresses on wrappers, or papers now in use or in the future may be introduced, and jogging of papers or wrappers to be used on any automatic mailing machine, employed by the rotary shops, i. e., American Publishing Corporation; Detroit Post Printing Company; Highland Parker Printers, Inc.; Michigan Rotary Press, Inc.; Unique Press; and Wyandotte Printing. Co. at their plants in Detroit, Michigan, excluding all other employees, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and other employees covered by contracts involving work other than specified above. (2) All employees doing work appertaining to mailing, such as addressing, tagging, stamping, labeling, bundling, or wrapping; cut- ting lists or wrappers (including galley work) ; operating stencil machines, filing or correcting stencils; sorting, routing, dissecting, or marking wrappers; taking bundles or papers from conveyors or esca- lators; stacking, jogging, folding; handling of bundles or mail sacks; distributing, counting of papers (leaving or returning) ; tying by hand or power machine; sacking, delivering papers to mailers, car- riers, agents or newsboys; inserting or dispatching of papers, envelopes, magazines, or circulars; whether done by hand or power machines, including auxiliary machines used in preparatory work for making plates, stencils, or any devices that may be used in placing names and addresses on wrappers, or papers now in use or in the future may be introduced, and jogging of papers or wrappers to be used on any automatic mailing machine, employed by the commercial shops, i. e., Accurate Mailing & Distributing Service; American Mailers and Binders; Chene Printing Co.; Detroit Gravure Corpora- tion ; Gratiot-Herald, Inc. ; Jourdan Co., Inc. ; Michigan Advertising 42 The units conform to those contained in the 1956 contracts 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Distributing Co.; Michigan Catholic Co.; and Reliable Mailing Service Co. at their plants in Detroit, Michigan, excluding all other employees, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the 'Act, and other employees covered by contracts involv- ing work other than specified above. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc. and Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union , Local 584 , IBT, Ind., Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-9305. July 23, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election 1 an elec- tion by secret ballot was conducted herein by United States mail, commencing on May 9, 1958, and terminating on May 16, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board among the employees in the unit found appropriate. The ballots were tallied on May 19, 1958, and an official tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally showed that 4 valid ballots were cast of which 3 were cast for the Petitioner and 1 was cast for the Local 56, International Brother- hood of Firemen, Oilers and Maintenance Mechanics, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor. There were no challenged or void ballots. On May 26, 1958, the Intervenor filed timely objections to the election and conduct affecting the results of the election, alleging that: (1) One of the voters did not himself cast his ballot; and (2) the ballots were counted with no representative of the Intervenor present because it had not been notified of the time and place of the counting of the ballot. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and on June 10, 1958, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections in which he recommended that the objections be overruled. On June 18, 1958, the Intervenor filed timely exceptions to the Regional Direc- tor's report on objections. Pursuant to the provisions of 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. As no exception was filed with respect to the Regional Director's recommendations as to objection 1 we hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and overrule the objection. Unpublished. 121 NLRB No. 28. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation