Idaho Supreme Potatoes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 38 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Idaho Supreme Potatoes, Inc. and Local Union 983,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Independent, Petitioner. Case 19-RC-7334
May 29, 1975
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
1 The election was conducted pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election. The tally was 64 for, and 74 against , the Petitioner
2 We agree with the Regional Director that the Employer did not satisfy
the Board 's Excelsior requirements by providing Petitioner with a computer
printout of employee names which admittedly contained at least 81 names
of ineligible voters in a unit of approximately 146 eligible employees.
Chemical Technology, Inc, 214 NLRB No 50 (1974), Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 (1966).
Although the Employer contends that because of the intervention of the
Thanksgiving holiday weekend it did not have the resources to provide an
updated list of eligible employees and still meet the deadline set by the
Regional Office for submitting such a list, we note that the Employer made
member panel has considered the Petitioner's objec-
tions to an election held on December 19, 1974,1 and
the Regional Director's report recommending dispo-
sition of same . The Board has reviewed the record in
light of the Employer's exceptions and brief, and
'hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations.2
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election conducted
herein on December 19, 1974, be, and it hereby is, set
aside.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
no efforts thereafter to notify the Petitioner that the list included many
ineligible names, or to update the list as soon as it had an opportunity to do
so. The Employer did not supply a corrected list until 2 days before the
election and acted then only after the Petitioner had complained to the
Regional Director about the substantial number of errors in the original list.
Under these circumstances we do not believe the Employer took all
reasonable measures to comply in good faith with the Excelsior require-
ments, and we so find. We also find that 2 days' access to the corrected list
was insufficient time to cure the substantial omissions from the initial list,
and that Petitioner was thus denied ample opportunity to communicate with
employees as required under our Excelsior rule.
218 NLRB No. 11