Kraftco Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 632 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kraft Foods Division of Kraftco Corporation and
Walter David Mathews and Ice, Storage, Scrap
Materials & Grain Warehousemen , Local Union
No. 105 affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America . Cases 9-CA-6497 and
9-RC-9151
August 1, 1972
DECISION, ORDER, AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On April 10, 1972, Trial Examiner Thomas D.
Johnston issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Petitioner-Intervenor
filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Respon-
dent filed limited cross-exceptions, a supporting
brief, and a brief in support of other portions of the
Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the challenge to the
ballot cast by Walter David Mathews in Case
9-RC-9151 be, and it hereby is, sustained.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have not been cast for Ice, Storage, Scrap
Material & Grain Warehousemen, Local No. 105,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America and that said labor organization is not
the exclusive bargaining representative of all employ-
ees in the unit herein involved within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard at Cincinnati, Ohio, on February 10 and 11, 1972,
pursuant to a charge filed by Walter David Mathews, An
Individual, on September 28, 1971,1 and a complaint issued
on November 17. The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods
'Division of Kraftco Corporation (herein referred to as
Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred
to as the Act), by threatening an employee with more
onerous and less desirable working conditions or discharge
because of the Union and by discriminatorily changing
!Walter David Mathews' warehouse duties to janitorial
tasks, making his duties more onerous and less desirable.
Respondent in its answer filed on November 26 denied
violating the Act. The issues are whether Respondent
!threatened an employee and whether it changed the duties
Hof Walter David Mathews to more onerous and less
desirable working conditions and if so, whether such
change was for discriminatory reasons.
On November 17 the Regional Director for Region 9, by
order, consolidated for hearing with the issues arising
under the complaint the resolution of a challenged ballot
cast by Walter David Mathews in an election conducted
on August 27, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election approved on July 26 based upon a
petition filed by the Ice, Storage, Scrap Materials & Grain
Warehousemen, Local Union No. 105, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein referred to
as the Union). The issue in resolving the challenged ballot
is whether Mathews was eligible to vote in the election.
At the hearing the parties were afforded full opportunity
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to
submit briefs. Upon the entire record in this case , from my
observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondent,2 I
hereby make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, a Delaware corporation with places of
business located at various locations including Cincinnati,
Ohio, is engaged as a manufacturer and wholesaler of food
products in the wholesaling industry. During the 12-month
period preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respon-
dent sold and shipped from its Cincinnati, Ohio, establish-
ment, which is the only one involved in this proceeding,
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
,located outside the State of Ohio.
1 All the dates referred to are in 1971 unless otherwise stated
2 The Union which was permitted to intervene as a party in the
complaint proceeding did not submit a beef
198 NLRB No. 94
KRAFT FOODS DIVISION
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. TILE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is an organization in which employees
participate and which exists for the purpose of dealing with
employers concerning matters including wages, hours, and
working conditions. It also negotiates and administers
collective-bargaining agreements with various employers.
This evidence is based upon the undenied testimony of
James Felder, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Union,
which I credit. Therefore, I find the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent, in the operation of its warehouse, employs
employees classified as warehousemen. Their primary
duties include putting away returns, which are items the
drivers are unable to deliver, pulling orders for delivery,
working on the line, and loading trucks. The equipment
used by them in performing these duties include electric
fork-lifts, electric tow motors, and hand carts. The
warehousemen are hourly paid and receive various benefits
including night premium pay, scheduled break periods,
insurance, pension plan, sick leave, funeral leave, and a
tuition refund plan.3 During the period in issue Warehouse
Manager Glenn Skaggs was in charge of the warehouse
and Robert Amrine was warehouse supervisor on the night
shift. Prior to Amnne assuming this position in October
1970, previous supervisors on this shift included Leadman
James Klausing from June 1970, to October 1970, and
Warehouse Supervisor Glenn Myers from November 1968,
to July 1970, with the exception of January 1970, when he
rotated with Warehouse Supervisor Edward Kunkemoeller.
The hours for second shift are from 3:30 p.m. to 12
midnight Monday through Friday and formerly were from
5 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. Warehouse work is also
performed on Sundays.
B. The Duties of Walter Mathews
Walter Mathews, the alleged discriminatee who is
presently employed by Respondent, was hired in October
1969. Respondent's records show throughout his employ-
ment he has been classified as a permanent part-time
miscellaneous employee. His normal work hours, arranged
to accomodate his status as a college student, averaged
between 25 to 30 hours each week,4 including up to 4 hours
each night Monday through Friday5 beginning at 4:30
p.m., and 8 hours on Saturday. During holidays and school
recesses he worked additional hours. Mathews testified
when he was hired he was told his main duties would
consist of washing and gassing Respondent's trucks, taking
care of the district sales manager's car, emptying the
cleaning lady's trash barrel, and burning trash in the
3 Part-time employees do not receive these benefits.
4 Respondent's records for 1971 show Mathews averaged less hours per
week except for the latter part of May through July when he worked
633
incinerator. Although Mathews claimed he was not
specifically instructed to do so, in addition to those duties,
he cleaned up the air-conditioning room and drivers room,
emptying their trash cans and the trash can from the
warehouse office into the incinerator, and cleaned up his
work area including the garage when necessary. According
to testimony of warehouse employees presented as witness-
es by counsel for General Counsel, Mathews on occasions
also cleaned up the front dock area and swept the
warehouse floor as did the warehouse employees.
I find that these duties performed by Mathews, which are
consistent with the testimonies of Warehouse Manager
Skaggs and Warehouse Supervisor Amrine about the duties
assigned Mathews, are those duties which Mathews
regularly performed throughout his employment as an
employee of Respondent.
Mathews testified in addition to his regular duties
described above he also performed duties normally
performed by warehousemen. According to him, shortly
after he was hired he began putting away returns and
within a period of several months was performing the other
duties performed by warehousemen. This additional work
continued until around September 1970 when he inquired
of Warehouse Manager Skaggs about a raise the ware-
house employees were to receive at which time Skaggs
informed him he was working too many hours and wasn't
suppose to be doing warehouse work. Skaggs instructed
him not to do any more warehouse work. Warehouse
Manager Skaggs denied this incident. However, according
to Mathews, after several weeks passed he was again asked
by supervision to perform certain warehouse duties and
within a short period he had resumed performing ware-
house duties as before. Mathews was not certain who gave
him these instructions.
Mathews estimated between October 1969, when he was
hired, and July 1970, he averaged between 20 to 30 percent
of his worktime each week performing warehouse duties
and the most warehouse work he performed occurred
during the period June to October 1970, when Leadman
Klausing was supervising warehouse work. Warehousemen
Larry Sturgel, Bernard Watts, and Charles Kehrer, who
worked with Mathews, corroborated the fact Mathews
performed warehouse work including putting away returns,
pulling orders, loading trucks, and working on the line and
that for a period of several weeks around September 1970
he ceased performing such duties. Sturgel testified Ma-
thews initially put away returns, and between December
1969 and May 1970, Mathews' pulled orders about every
night, loaded some trucks, and thereafter up until around
July worked on the line about 2 hours just about each
night. Watts testified Mathews initially put away returns
and after several months started doing other warehouse
work. Although he claimed Warehouse Manager Skaggs
and Warehouse Supervisor Amrine gave him instructions
to have Mathews perform warehouse work, under cross-
examination, Watts acknowledged these instructions ap-
plied to Sunday work performed during a school recess
discussed infra, about which there is no dispute Mathews
additional hours because of a school recess, discussed infra
5 Mathews does not presently work on Fridays.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performed warehouse work. While Kehrer on direct
examination testified Mathews performed workhour work
2 to 3 hours every night, on cross-examination he limited
his estimate to only about half of the days Mathews
worked. Respondent's supervisors denied Mathews per-
formed warehouse work on a regular basis, or that he
worked 2 or 3 hours a night performing such work. Former
Warehouse Supervisor Myers, who supervised the ware-
house from November 1968, to July 1970, testified
Mathews only performed warehouse work when the
warehouse was extremely busy or on holidays or when
employees were ill with the exception of school recesses
when Mathews worked extra hours. Myers acknowledged
Mathews put away returns but stated this vaned from three
or four occasions a week to none at all. He further stated
during a couple of extremely busy weeks Mathews spent
about 50 percent of his time performing warehouse work.
Warehouse Supervisor Amrine, who began supervising the
warehouse in October 1970, testified the only warehouse
work he assigned Mathews prior to May except for
holidays was to load semitrailer trucks using a fork-lift on
five or six occasions because of illnesses or heavy work
loads. According to him, the only time he observed
Mathews putting away returns was when it was necessary
for his own convenience. Warehouse Manager Skaggs
testified he had instructed Mathews to put away returns on
Fridays when the other men had gone and the truckdrivers
came in late and the only occasions he was aware of that
Mathews pulled orders was when Mathews would get up
an order for a salesman.
Based upon the above evidence, I find, and Respon-
dent's supervisorss admit, that dunng Mathews' employ-
ment he performed some warehouse work in addition to
his regular duties. However the conflict apses over the
amount of time Mathews spent performing such work and
whether it was performed on a regular basis. Counsel for
General Counsel' s witnesses all vaned in their testimonies
concerning both matters. Further, no distinctions were
made by them in their estimates to account for the fact as
reflected by Respondent's records that Mathews averaged
fewer work hours during his normal workweek in 1971
when he was under the supervision of Warehouse Supervi-
sor Amnne than previously. Mathews himself, called as a
rebuttal witness when asked to describe the warehouse
duties he performed after Warehouse Supervisor Amnne
took over in October 1970 but prior to May, could only
relate, in addition to those five or six incidents testified to
by Amnne, some occasions when' he put away returns and
helped park the trucks to be loaded by temporary help
from Handy Andy around December. Therefore, in view
of Respondent's records and Mathews' admissions that he
only performed warehouse duties on limited occasions
during his normal workweek under Warehouse Supervisor
Amrine, which corroborates Amrine's testimony, I find
that since October 1970 Mathews has not performed
warehouse work on a regular basis during his normal
workweek and the limited occasions he did perform such
work were of an isolated nature. This finding does not
imply that prior to October 1970 he performed warehouse
work on a regular basis although it appears he did perform
more warehouse work prior to that date.
Arrangements were made in May for Mathews, in
addition to performing his regular duties, to work extra
hours during the week and on Sundays performing
warehouse work. The evidence shows these arrangements
were made pursuant to Mathews' request for additional
hours because of a school recess and Respondent's need
for help in the warehouse because of vacation schedules,
illnesses , and the workload.? However this was only a
temporary arrangement because of the school recess and
ended in July following Mathews marriage on June 26 and
his vacation and return to work on July 5 when he
requested a resumption of his previous work schedule in
order to resume his studies. During these extra work hours
including Sundays, Mathews performed warehouse work.
It was during this period Mathews and other employees
performing warehouse work were assigned marks to use
when checking items on invoices to determine who was
making errors. These facts, which I find , are essentially
undisputed. While Mathews claimed when these arrange-
ments were made Warehouse Manager Skaggs told him to
give priority to the warehouse work over his regular duties,
which Skaggs denied, the evidence showed Mathews
continued performing his regular duties during that period.
Following his request in July to return to his former work
schedule Mathews did so with the exception he did not
work on Fridays. He had initially stopped working on
Fridays during the school recess at Respondent's request
because he was working 7 days a week. According to
Mathews he had not resumed his Friday work because he
had been told on a particular Friday he would not be
needed and thereafter he didn't come in because he wasn't
asked. While Mathews contended this resulted in his
working fewer hours per week Respondent's records, which
show his average hours remained approximately the same,
refute this contention. However the elimination of the
Friday work or reduction in his hours was not alleged in
the complaint or fully litigated at the hearing and
accordingly I will make no finding on this matter.
According to Mathews beginning around the middle of
July, Warehouse Supervisor Amrine stopped requesting
him to perform any warehouse work.
C. The Alleged Threat and Discrimination Against
Mathews
Mathews testified on July 29 Warehouse Manager
Skaggs called him at his home informing him he was
making out the eligibility list to determine who should vote
in the union election and inquired whether he would be
working in August when it would be held.8 Mathews stated
when he replied he would Skaggs told him since he was
married he should start looking for a full-time job and
union or no union he would be looking for somebody to
replace him and would be cutting his hours. Mathews also
stated Skaggs told him he was classified as a part-time
permanent miscellaneous employee which is the first
6 Respondent in its answer admitted Warehouse Manager Skaggs and r Respondent also hired college students each year including 1971 to
Warehouse Supervisor Amnne were supervisors within the meaning of work full time in the warehouse dunng the summer.
Section 2(11) of the Act 9 The election was held on August 27.
KRAFT FOODS DIVISION 635
knowledge he had of his classification. Warehouse Manag-
er Skaggs acknowledged calling Mathews sometime in July
but was uncertain of the date. His purpose was to find out
when Mathews was going to graduate from school so they
could hire a replacement as it had been his understanding
Mathews had planned to graduate in June.9 Skaggs
specifically denied making any threats to reduce Mathews'
hours or to discharge him or that any mention was made
about the union or eligibility list. Warehouse Supervisor
Amrine, who testified he was present with Warehouse
Manager Skaggs when he called Mathews, placed the
conversation as occurring on July 13 and corroborated
Warehouse Manager Skaggs' denial of the statements
attributed to him by Mathews. According to Amrine, on
the previous day pursuant to Skaggs' request, he had
unsuccessfully attempted to find out from Mathews when
he was going to graduate so a replacement could be hired
and on July 13, when he reported the results of his efforts
to Skaggs, Skaggs called Mathews. Mathews did not deny
having such a conversation with Amrine. I credit Ware-
house Manager Skaggs' denial corroborated by Amnne
and find that Skaggs did not make the alleged threats or
remarks attributed to him by Mathews. Mathews, whose
testimony was to some extent characterized by evasiveness
and a distortion of facts where more favorable to him, did
not impress me as a credible witness. Further, Mathews'
version of the conversation is implausible in the absence of
any evidence to show at the time the conversation occurred
even assuming it occurred on July 29 Mathews had
engaged in any union activities or expressed his union
sentiments in addition to the fact no reasonable basis
existed, discussed infra, for including him in the bargaining
unit. Although the complaint alleges that on July 29
Respondent also threatened an employee, presumably
Mathews, with more onerous and less desirable working
conditions, no evidence was presented with respect to this
portion of the complaint.
Shortly before the election was held on August 27,
Respondent held a meeting of its warehousemen 10 at the
plant concerning the election. When Mathews inquired
about attending the meeting he was refused on the grounds
it did not concern him. Inasmuch as I do not find Mathews
was an eligible voter, discussed infra, Respondent by not
permitting him to attend the meeting did not thereby
discriminate against him.
Mathews testified that around August 26 when he asked
District Sales Manager H. W. Striker, an admitted
supervisor, why his name didn't appear on the eligibility
list Striker replied only warehousemen were supposed to
vote and he was classified as a part-time permanent
miscellaneous employee. Striker also informed him they
had been employing him so he could go to school and he
shouldn't be concerned about the election. Mathews stated
he told Striker he had been doing warehouse work, felt he
had a right to vote, and said he wasn't going to quit until
there was a union in the warehouse. According to
Warehouse Manager Skaggs the next day Striker informed
him of his conversation with Mathews.
Mathews testified that on August 28, the day following
the election, Warehouse Manager Skaggs instructed him
not to do any warehouse work but to confine his duties to
washing and gassing the trucks, taking care of the
automobiles used by the district manager and zone
manager, and emptying and burning the trash in the
incinerator. While not related initially in his testimony
concerning his conversation with Skaggs, Mathews claimed
he was also told by Skaggs to clean the incinerator which
he had not previously done. Skaggs denied assigning
Mathews any additional duties. Although Mathews con-
tends another employee Seiter had previously performed
this task the record doesn't clearly establish by probative
evidence whose duty it was or whether Mathews is the only
employee who has since performed this task. Skaggs
admitted telling Mathews not to do any more warehouse
work because District Sales Manager Striker, upon
learning Mathews had been performing such work, had
ordered it stopped since Mathews was a miscellaneous
employee and he had had trouble at other branches with
miscellaneous employees doing warehouse work.
On September 23 Mathews received a written memoran-
dum from Warehouse Manager Skaggs instructing him to
empty the trash cans in both offices and the air-condition-
ing room, to burn all the trash he could, and on Saturdays
to sweep the garage floor and keep it clean from day to
day, and to sweep the warehouse and front dock. Mathews
testified that since receiving the memorandum those duties
stated therein as well as the other regular duties previously
found such as washing and gassing the trucks are the only
duties which he has performed.
Warehouse Manager Skaggs, who had previously left
memorandums for Mathews concerning his work, testified
the September 23 memorandum resulted from complaints
which he had received and had observed himself about
Mathews not performing his regular duties properly.
According to Skaggs the only additional assignment given
Mathews in the memorandum was to sweep the warehouse
when he had time.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
Counsel for General Counsel contends Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by threatening
an employee with more onerous and less desirable working
conditions and by discriminating against Mathews by
taking away his warehouse duties and assigning him
janitorial tasks thereby making his duties more onerous
and less desirable because of the Union. If proven, such
conduct would violate the Act. Respondent's Counsel
denies Mathews was either threatened or discriminated
against. Among those factors relied upon by Counsel for
General Counsel in support of his position was the alleged
threat made by Warehouse Manager Skaggs to reduce
Mathews' hours and to replace him; prohibiting Mathews
from attending the meeting of the warehouse employees;
reducing Mathews' workweek; and Mathews' conversation
with Warehouse Manager Skaggs and the memorandum
concerning his work assignments. These factors have all
been discussed and certain findings made. Since no
9 According to Mathews his school plans had changed on several
occasions
10 The college students who were working full time in the warehouse
during the summer did not attend the meeting.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence was presented to show Mathews or any other
employee was threatened with more onerous or less
desirable working conditions, and in view of my finding no
other threats were made to him, the only issues remaining
are whether Mathews' warehouse duties were changed to
janitorial tasks thereby making his duties more onerous
and less desirable and if so whether such changes were for
discriminatory reasons. There is no question but that on
the day following the election Mathews was prohibited
from performing warehouse duties. However, since it has
already been found that since October 1970, he had only
performed such duties during his normal workweek on an
isolated basis, the announced change did not materially
affect his regular work. To the extent it may ultimately
affect extra work such as that performed during holidays
and school recesses, this is only speculative inasmuch as
the record does not establish the amount of time previously
spent by Mathews in performing such work and in view of
his contemplated graduation. With respect to the issue of
whether his duties were made more onerous and less
desirable, a comparison of his regular duties previously
found with those duties Mathews was orally instructed to
perform and subsequently reiterated by the memorandum
establishes they are substantially the same duties and of the
same nature. Therefore, I do not find the evidence is
sufficient to establish Mathews' duties have become more
onerous and less desirable. Further, I do not find this
announced change in prohibiting Mathews from perform-
ing warehouse duties resulted from discriminatory reasons.
While the timing of the announced change, occurring only
2 days after Respondent had obtained knowledge of
Mathews' prounion sentiments, is a factor to consider in
inferring a discriminatory motive for the change, I do not
find it significant since it was that same occasion District
Sales Manager Striker learned from Mathews himself he
had been performing warehouse work which was the
reason given by Respondent for the change. Moreover,
Mathews had previously been prohibited from performing
warehouse duties at a time when there was no evidence the
Union was engaged in an organizing campaign among
Respondent's employees. Counsel for General Counsel's
contention that the change in Mathews' duties was related
to excluding him from the bargaining unit is untenable on
two grounds: namely, the announced change did not occur
until after the election albeit the challenge to Mathews'
ballot was pending, and prior to the election Mathews'
limited warehouse duties would not have made hum eligible
to vote in the election. The stipulated bargaining unit was
described as follows "All warehousemen employed by the
Employer at its warehouse at 4530 W. Mitchell Avenue,
Cincinnati, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, and all guards, professional employees and supervi-
sors, as defined in the Act, and all other employees."
For employees who perform more than one function for
" In view of my finding I do not find it necessary to discuss the
testimonies of Counsels for the Respondent and the General Counsel,
the same employer to be eligible to vote they must
regularly perform duties similar to those performed by unit
employees for sufficient periods of time to demonstrate
they have a substantial interest in the working conditions
in the unit. Berea Publishing Company, 140 NLRB 516;
R.B.P., Inc., d/b/a Royal Communicating Graphics, 176
NLRB No. 22. Mathews, who was not classified as a
warehouseman, did not perform warehouse duties either
regularly or for sufficient periods to be included in the
bargaining unit. Cf. Davis Transport, Inc. 169 NLRB 557;
reaffd. 180 NLRB 966, enfd. 433 F.2d 363 (C.A. 6).
For these reasons and in the absence of any evidence to
establish union animus on the part of the Respondent, I
find that Counsel for the General Counsel has failed to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence, as is his
burden, that Respondent either threatened Mathews or
any other employee with more onerous and less desirable
working conditions or discharge or discriminated against
Mathews by making his duties more onerous and less
desirable because of the union as alleged.
IV. THE CHALLENGED BALLOT
The eligibility status of Walter David Mathews as a voter
in the election conducted in Case 9-RC-9151 has already
been discussed. Having found that Mathews was not a
warehouse employee and did not have a substantial
interest in the working conditions in the bargaining unit to
be included in the unit, I hereby recommend that the
challenge to the ballot of Walter David Mathews be
sustained and that the results after the election be
certified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Kraft Foods Division of Kraftco Corporation is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Ice, Storage, Scrap Materials & Grain Warehouse-
men, Local Union No. 105, affiliated with the Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The evidence does not prove that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER
The complaint herein is dismissed in its entirety.
The challenge to the ballot of Walter David Mathews in
Case 9-RC-9151 is sustained and the results of the election
should be certified.
concerning their conversations which resulted in the execution of the
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election in Case 9-RC-9151.