Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 879 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

DON &LLEN MIDTOWN CHEVROLFIT, INC. 879
not be allowed to vote- inasmuch as they have no such reasonable ex-
pectancy.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet , Inc. and Local 259, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. O-RC-7117. August 19,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On January 28, 1955, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the, Second Region
among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate
by the Board. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were
furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that there were 72
ballots cast, of which 16 ballots were for Local 259, UAW-CIO '(the
Petitioner) ; 51 ballots for West Side Employees Association, Inde=
pendent (the Intervenor) ; no ballots were cast against the participat'
ing labor organizations; and 6 ballots were challenged. On February
2, 1955, the Petitioner in timely fashion filed with the Regional Di-
rector and served on the parties its objections 'to election. After an
investigation, the Regional Director, on May 17,1955, issued and duly
served upon the parties his report on objections. In his report, the
Regional Director found that the objections raised certain substan-
tial and material issues of fact as to whether the Employer interfered
with the election, and recommended that a hearing on objections'be
held. ' Exceptions to the report on objections were timely filed by the
Employer and the Intervenor.
Among other things, the Employer excepts to the generalized form
of the objections filed by the Petitioner, contending that these objec-
tions are invalid because they fail to meet the requirements for filing
objections in the published Rules and Regulations of the Board. We
find merit in this contention of the Employer.
Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as
amended, provides in pertinent part :
,Within 5 days after the tally of ballots has'been furnished, any-
party may file with the, regional director four copies of objections
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and orders.
113 NLRB No. 102.
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of
the election, which shall contain a short statement of the reasons
therefor. . . . Copies of such objections shall immediately be
served upon each of the other parties by the party filing them, and
proof of service shall be made. [Emphasis supplied.]
The objections filed by the Petitioner state,'as follows :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that LOCAL 259, UAW, CIO, the
petitioner herein, by its attorneys, BOUDIN, COHN AND
GLICKSTEIN, hereby objects to the results and conduct of the
election held in the above matter on Friday, January 28, 1954, on
the ground that the employer, by its representatives and agents,
interfered with its employees and prevented them from exercising
their free choice in the selection of a collective bargaining
representative.
It is clear that the objections contain merely a general conclusive
allegation of interference with the election by the Employer, devoid
of any specific content or substance. Consequently, the objections fail
to supply the "short statement of reasons therefor" required by the
Board's Rules. The plain purpose of the provision in Rule 102.61 for
a "short statement of the reasons" for objections is to discountenance
the filing of objections in the form such as here involved, and to re-
quire that objections, to merit investigation by the Regional Director,
be reasonably specific in alleging facts which prima facie would war-
rant setting aside the election. The rule thereby provides a minimum
safeguard to discourage attempts to delay the effectuation of con-
clusive election results by a party invoking the Board's objections
procedures without having knowledge at the time of filing of any
basis for invalidating the election. We regard the requirement of
reasonable specificity in filing objections under the Board's Rules as
a fundamental procedure essential to fairness, and not merely tech-
nical.2 Accordingly, as the objections filed by the Petitioner fail to
comport with the Board's Rules, we find they are not properly before
the Board for consideration on the merits,3 and they are hereby
dismissed.
As the tally of ballots shows that the Intervenor has received a
majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify it
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit. ,.
See National Carbon company, 99 NLRB 774 ; 770
Mission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 361 ; National Carbon Company, ibid.
Prior cases , including Gastonia Weaving Company, 103 NLRB 1200 , and Wilson A Co.
Inc. 88 NLRB 1. to the extent they are inconsistent with the decision herein, are hereby
overruled.
l
OREGON FROZEN FOODS COMPANY 881
[The Board certified West Side Employees Association, Independ-
ent, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of • the Employer, in the unit found appropriate.]
MEMBER MURDOCK , dissenting in part :
I join my colleagues in the majority opinion insofar as it enunciates
the clear requirement for future cases that objections to an election,
to be validly filed under the Board' s Rule 102.61, must be stated in
reasonably specific terms. However, I would not apply this strict
requirement to the objections filed in the present case, in view of the
lack of complete clarity in Rule 102:61 as to what is meant by a"short
statement of the reasons" for objections, and the uncertainty on the
question in existing Board cases.4 As a matter of fundamental equity
and fairness, I believe that a party, such, as the Petitioner in the
present case, should not be held, to its prejudice, as having breached
a rule of procedure where, as here, the existence and content of the
rule have not been made unmistakably clear. Accordingly, I would
consider on the merits the alleged acts of interference with the election
described in the Regional Director's report on objections.
4 In cases which preceded the promulgation of- Series 4 of the Board 's Rules and Regu-
lations , effective September 11, 1946, wherein the provision for "a short statement of the
reasons" for objections was first incorporated, the Board permitted the filing of a gen-
eral statement of objections such as involved in the instant case. See e. g., Reliance
Manufacturing Co , 67 NLRB 515, 519 ( where a telegram merely "protesting" the elec-
tion was allowed) Under the Rules in existence since September 11, 1946 ( including
Series 6 of the Rules, as amended, now in effect ), the Board continued to accept as valid
the filing of generalized objections, in Wilson f Co . Inc., 88 NLRB 1, and Gastonia Weav-
ing Company, 103 NLRB 1200; likewise in Lockwood-Dutcheas, Inc ., 106 NLRB 1089,
which is apparently the most recent case in point However, in National Carbon Com-
pany, 99 NLRB 774, and Hission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 331, the contrary
was held
Oregon Frozen Foods Company and Ore-Ida Potato Products,
Inc. and Teamsters , Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local No. 900,
AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 36-RC-1033. August,19, 1955
.SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
On April 28, 1955, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of
Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Re-
gion, among the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.
Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The tally shows that of approximately 293 eligible voters, 272 cast bal-
lots, of which 75 were for, and 185 against, the Petitioner. There
1 108 NLRB 1668
113 NLRB No. 90.