Ona Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1978

235 N.L.R.B. 595 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

ONA CORPORATION
Ona Corporation and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
& Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 10-RC-10958
April 3, 1978
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On July 15, 1977, the Regional Director for Region
10 issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification
of Representative in which he found that the Em-
ployer's objections to the election held on May 19,
1977, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election,' were without merit. Thereafter, in accor-
dance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's decision on the
grounds that, in reaching his conclusions, he depart-
ed from established Board precedent.
The National Labor Relations Board, by telegraph-
ic order dated September 7, 1977, granted the request
for review with respect to the Employer's Objections
4 and 5 only,2 and stayed the certification pending
disposition of said objections.
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 entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review, includ-
ing the Employer's request for review and the brief in
support thereof, and makes the following findings.
Contrary to the Regional Director, we find merit in
the Employer's Objections 4 and 5.
The Employer's Objections 4 and 5 allege in
substance that the Union distributed excerpted cop-
ies of a complaint and notice of hearing in Case 10-
CA-12676 alleging that the Employer violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act and that the official Board
document had been altered by leaving out selected
portions and by including partisan statements, all in
such a fashion as to make the alteration appear to be
an exact replica of an official Board document, thus
giving the impression that the Board had already
determined the Employer's guilt and/or favored the
Petitioner in the election.
I The tally of ballots showed that, of approximately 377 eligible voters,
196 cast ballots for and 173 against the Petitioner. There were no challenged
or void ballots cast.
2 The Employer's motion for reconsideration with respect to the
remaining objections, the exceptions to which were not included in the grant
The Regional Director found that those portions of
the official complaint and notice of hearing that were
deleted were merely jurisdictional or conclusory and
that the distributed document contained a statement
that the Company had denied all of the allegations of
unfair labor practices. He then concluded that the
alteration did not constitute a misstatement of the
facts, nor a misrepresentation as to the Board's
neutrality.
A comparison of the alteration with the actual
complaint and notice of hearing issued by the
Regional Director shows, however, that in addition
to the initial six numbered paragraphs, the alteration,
up to the Regional Director's signature, also deletes
the final two paragraphs which set the time and place
for the hearing as well as the Employer's right to
answer the allegations. It is significant to note that
the final deleted paragraph also advises that if the
preceding allegations are not answered the Board
may find them to be true. The Regional Director's
signature then appears directly below the unfair
labor practice allegations excerpted from the official
complaint, giving the appearance that the document
was complete as reproduced above the signature.
We find, in disagreement with the Regional Direc-
tor, that the addition of a statement by the Petitioner
at the bottom of the altered document and below the
Regional Director's signature that a hearing had
been set and that the Company had denied all of the
unfair labor practice allegations does not sufficiently
cure the defect in the alteration, inasmuch as the
altered document gives the appearance that the
Board had concluded that the Employer had com-
mitted the unfair labor practices listed above the
Regional Director's signature. We therefore find
under these circumstances that the Petitioner's repro-
duction of a Board document which was altered for
campaign purposes constitutes a misuse of our
processes in that such reproduction was reasonably
calculated to mislead employees into believing that
the Board had judged the Employer to have violated
Federal law, whereas such was not the case. See
Mallory Capacitor Co., a Division of P. R. Mallory &
Co., Inc., 161 NLRB 1510 (1966). Accordingly,
Objections 4 and 5 are hereby sustained, and we shall
set aside the election and direct that a second
election be conducted.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
of review, is hereby denied in light of our conclusion that a second election
be ordered based on Objections 4 and 5. The Employer's request for oral
argument is also denied, as the exceptions and bnef adequately present the
issues and positions of the parties.
235 NLRB No. 85
595