Arora Steel Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 46 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Aurora Steel Products, and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Case 13
RC- 14754
January 23, 1979
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS PENELLO. MURPHY. ANT TRUESDALE
Pursuant to authority granted it under Section 3(b)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
three-member panel has considered objections to an
election held July 7, 1978,' and the Regional
Director's report recommending disposition of
same.2 The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and brief and hereby adopts the Re-
gional Director's findings and recommendations.3
'The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for (ertification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 35 for and 28 against the Petitioner
there were no challenged ballots.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto. the Board adopts, pro forma. the
Regional Director's recommendation that Employer's Objection 4 be over-
ruled.
With respect to Objection 1, the Regional Director found that
Petitioner's payment of certain moneys to four employees was only a rein-
bursement for wages lost while the four employees attended a conference at
the National Labor Relations Board. The Employer argues, however. that
the payment to each employee was approximately twice the employees
hourly wage rate. In so contending, the Employer relies on an affidavit in
which an employee was allegedly told by one of the four employees who
had received money that Petitioner had paid that employee $40 for the 4
hours he spent at the National Labor Relations Board." he Employer
argues that for 4 hours' work at the Employer's facility the employee would
have been paid about $20. he Employer's contention fails to take into
account the fact that the employee would also have to be compensated for
his travel time from the Employer's location in Aurora. Illinois. to the
Board's office in Chicago, Illinois, and back to Aurora. During this time. the
employee would also have lost wages. and. noting the distance between
Aurora and Chicago, we conclude that the amount of compensation for this
period was proper. Assuming, arguendo, that the employees spent onl a
total of 4 hours away from work. we would still find the amount of compen-
sation in this case was not improper. See Quirk Shop Malrket In( , 2(K)
NLRB 830 (1972), enfd. 492 E.2d 1248 (8th ('ir. 1974)
The Regional Director further found that the Employer had presented no
evidence in support of its allegation that certain employees were told by
Petitioner that they would not he required to pay union dues if Petitioner
won the election. The Employer argues that it "advised the Regional
Director's agent that it had been rumored among the employees that the
Union had promised some employees that in exchange for their support
they would not be required to pay Union dues if the Union got in." The
Employer states that it gave the Board agent the names of three employees
who allegedly had received such promises and that the Regional [)irector's
characterization of its submitting "no evidence" on the issue is therefore in
error. Assuming that the Employer submitted this list of names to the Re-
gion, the Employer has submitted no evidence of what these employees
might testify to, nor did it submit the names of any employees who allegedly
heard these rumors and what these employees might testify to on this issue.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Employer did not furnish sufficient evi-
dence to provide a prima facie case in support of its objections. and what
evidence it alleges it did submit did not require the Regional Director to
investigate the objection further. See, e.g., .4llen Tler & Sons. Inc. 234
NLRB 212 (1978).
240 NLRB No. 76
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO--CLC. and that, pursuant to Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act, the foregoing labor organization
is the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the following appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment:
All regular full-time and part-time production
and maintenance and plant clerical employees
employed by the Employer at its facility now
located at 580 South Lake Street, Aurora, Illi-
nois: excluding office clerical and professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
MFMBFR MURPHY, dissenting:
One of the Employer's allegations in its Objection
I is that the Union promised employees that in ex-
change for their support they would not be required
to pay union dues if the Union got in. The Regional
Director recommended that this portion of Objection
I be overruled on the ground that the Employer pre-
sented no evidence in support of it.
The Employer claims, however, that it supplied the
Regional Director with the names of three employees
who had received such promises. Despite that claim,
my colleagues adopt the Regional Director's conclu-
sion and recommendation concerning the allegation.
I cannot agree.
It is, of course, well-established Board practice
that an objecting party must identify the nature of
the misconduct alleged to have occurred and supply
a list of witnesses with a brief description of the testi-
mony of each. See, e.g., Samho's North Division Store
No. 144, 223 NLRB 565 (1976), and Ohio Masonic
Home, 233 NLRB 1004 (1977). However, in contrast
with those cases, here the allegation of objectionable
conduct is very specific: employees were promised
that they would not have to pay dues in exchange for
their support of the Union. Thus, when the Employer
presented the names of three individuals who alleg-
edly received such promises, it had furnished suffi-
cient information to the Region to require the latter
to proceed with the investigation of the objection. At
that point, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Re-
gion to interview the individuals named by the Em-
ployer to determine the merits of the objection, and
the failure of the Regional Director to have that done
constituted an abuse of discretion. This is so unless
we are henceforth going to require an objecting party
also to submit detailed statements from witnesses, a
AURORA STEEL PRODUCTS 47
requirement which heretofore has never been im-
posed.
In these circumstances, my colleagues' condona-
tion of the Regional Director's action constitutes an
abdication of the Agency's function of protecting the
laboratory conditions for the conduct of Board elec-
tions. In this case, the Employer has satisfied the
Board's requirements; it alleged specific conduct by
the Union which, if it occurred, would warrant set-
ting the election aside and, in support thereof, has
identified the witnesses who it claims would substan-
tiate its allegation. Consequently, my colleagues'
adoption of the Regional Director's holding that the
Employer has not presented evidence in support of
the allegation in question elevates form over sub-
stance.
Accordingly, I would remand this aspect of Objec-
tion I to the Regional Director for the purpose of
interviewing the three named witnesses and for such
additional investigation as thereafter may be appro-
priate.4 Perhaps the result would be the same; cer-
tainly no one knows. But the facts do call for an
investigation to find out. This I would order.
4 See my dissent in Allen T71er & Sons. Inc., 234 NLRB 212 (1978).