Mohawk Bedding Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 432 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mohawk Bedding Corp . and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (IND.)
Local Union 182 of Utica , Petitioner. Case
3-RC-4623
September 16, 1969
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election executed by the parties and
approved by the Regional Director for Region 3 on
April 9, 1969. an election by secret ballot was
conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on May
20, 1969, under the direction and supervision of the
said Regional Director. Upon conclusion of the
election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties
in accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
The tally of ballots shows that there were
approximately four eligible voters, and that four
ballots were cast, of which four were for the
Petitioner, none were against the Petitioner, and
none were challenged. Thereafter, the Employer
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation and thereafter, on June 16, 1969,
issued his Report on Objections to the Board. In his
Report, the Regional Director recommended that
the objections be overruled in their entirety, and that
the Petitioner be certified. Pursuant to Section
102.69(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Employer filed timely 'exceptions to these
recommendations with the Board.
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 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. In accordance with the stipulation of the
parties, 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 truckdrivers at its Broad St., Utica, New
York plant, excluding all production and
maintenance employees, office clerical employees.
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the entire record in
this case, including the objections, the Regional
Director's Report on Objections, and the exceptions
thereto, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's
findings and recommendations.
In our opinion, the Employer's exceptions to the
Regional Director's recommendation that the
objections be overruled raise no material or
substantial issue of fact or law which would warrant
reversal of the Regional Director's findings or
recommendations, or which would require a hearing.
We note specifically that in Atlantic Mills Servicing
Corporation of Cleveland, Inc., 120 NLRB 1284.
1288, footnote 7, cited and relied on by the Regional
Director, the Board stated: "... . [T]he decision in
this case . . . requires the party filing objections to
identify the nature of the misconduct on which the
objections are based and to submit evidence in
support thereof at the time of filing or forthwith
upon request from the Regional Director.. ."' In the
instant case, the election was held on May 20, 1969,
and the Employer's objections were filed on May
28, 1969. The Regional Director requested
supporting evidence from the Employer on May 29,
1969, and, on June 5, 1969, received only a
restatement of the original objections and an offer
to make the unit employees available to the Board.
On June 9, 1969, the Regional Director made a
second request for evidence in support of the
objections. According to its exceptions to the
Regional Director's Report, the Employer stated
that it would submit further evidence, at some
undetermined time in the future, when "it was able
to give more specificity to its allegations." The
Regional Director is entitled to some discretion in
deciding whether supporting evidence has been
submitted "forthwith.'' When, on June 9, the
Employer still could not specify when it would be
able to furnish such evidence, the Regional Director
could reasonably decide that the time had arrived
for closing the case and beginning the process of
issuing his report on the objections. The fact that
the Employer thereafter, on June 12, mailed a letter
naming certain witnesses who would allegedly
support the objections, which letter may or may not
have been received prior to issuance of the Regional
Director's Report on June 16, is immaterial to the
validity of the Regional Director's earlier
determination to bring the proceedings to an end. In
light of the requests made by the Regional Director
in this case, and the Employer's responses, it
appears that the Regional Director has not abused
his discretion.
Moreover, it appears that the evidence finally
submitted by the Employer does not support the
178 NLRB No. 68
MOHAWK BEDDING CORP. 433
Employer's contention that the Union was
responsible for the alleged misrepresentations. The
Employer's letter simply states that certain
supervisors would testify that, prior to the election.
some employees talked about various benefits they
expected to gain by voting for the Union. The
proffered evidence does not indicate that the Union
was in any way responsible for the beliefs of the
employees, nor is there any showing, other than the
Employer's bare claim, that these beliefs were in
fact erroneous.
Accordingly, as the tally shows that the Petitioner
has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast, we
shall certify it as bargaining representative.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Ind.) Local
Union 182 of Utica has been designated and
selected by a majority of the employees of the
Employer in the unit found appropriate herein as
their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said
labor organization is the exclusive representative of
all such employees for purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment.