Great Lakes Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 422 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation and Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 26-RC-3295
February 12, 1969
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election approved on October 8, 1968,1 an
election by secret ballot was conducted on October
18, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 26, among employees
of the Employer in the unit found appropriate
herein. At the close of the election, a tally of ballots
was furnished each of the parties in accordance with
the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally of
ballots showed that of approximately 42 eligible
voters, 22 cast their ballots for, and 16 against,
Petitioner, 2 ballots were challenged.
On October 25, the Employer filed timely
objections to the conduct of the election. On
November 13, after an investigation in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the
Regional Director issued and served upon the
parties his Report on Objections to Election in
which he recommended that the objections be
overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit. The Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's Report.z
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of the employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees and
regular full-time truckdrivers employed at the
'All dates herein are 1968
The Employer having filed no exceptions as to the Regional Director's
recommendation as to the Employer ' s objections No 2, the Regional
Director' s recommendation that such objection be overruled is hereby
adopted pro forma.
El Dorado, Arkansas, plant of the Employer,
excluding all office clerical employees, laboratory
employees, casual employees, watchmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Board has considered the objections, the
Regional Director's Report, and the exceptions
thereto, and hereby adopts the recommendations of
the Regional Director.
We agree with the Regional Director that there is
insufficient evidence that a statement made by
Union representative Stratton at a union meeting
held on October _16, contained a misrepresentation
so as to warrant setting the election aside. The
Employer's version of Stratton's statement is based
upon a remark made by an employee, at a social
gathering at a local tavern hosted by the Employer's
plant manager, following the election. During this
social gathering, which started at about 5 p.m. and
continued until between midnight and I a.m., the
plant manager inquired of the employees present as
to their reasons for wanting a union. Upon being
informed, by an employee, that it was a question of
wages the plant manager voiced the opinion that the
Employer was paying the highest wage rates in the
area. To the latter, an employee made the alleged
remark that Stratton had told them at a union
meeting on October 16, that another company in the
area paid operators $4 per hour, which was in excess
of the Employer's rate. The version reported to the
Employer did not purport to be a full and complete
version of Stratton's remarks. The Regional
Director's investigation which included testimony
from the employee who made the remark to the
plant manager, another employee who was at the
meeting, and Stratton, disclosed that the statement
made at the union meeting was a properly qualified
one and at variance with the Employer's version. In
our opinion, considering the social circumstances in
which the remark was made to the plant manager,
which in and of themselves were not conducive to
accuracy, the uncorroborated, off hand and hearsay
version of Stratton's remarks offered by the
Employer could not, in the circumstances, be
construed as evidencing a substantial and material
misrepresentation so as to warrant setting the
election aside . (Hollywood Ceramics Co., Inc., 140
NLRB 221). In view of our finding herein the
Employer's request for a hearing is denied. (Sun
Drug Co., 147 NLRB 221, enfd. 359 F.2d
(C.A.3).
408
Accordingly, as we have overruled the Employer's
objections to the election, and as the tally of ballots
shows that the Petitioner has received a majority of
the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify
it as the collective-bargaining representative in the
appropriate unit.
174 NLRB No. 79
GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORP. 423
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE Consent Election, approved on August 7, 1968, and
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act the said labor
organization is the exclusive representative of all the
It is hereby certified that the Petitioner has been employees in such unit for purposes of collective
designated and by a majority of the employees of bargaining with respect to rates of pay, hours of
the Employer in the unit found appropriate and employment , and other terms and conditions of
agreed to in the Stipulation for Certification upon employment.
y