353 N.L.R.B. 965 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

Parsec, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 20, 2009

353 N.L.R.B. 965 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

PARSEC, INC. 353 NLRB No. 96 965 Parsec, Inc. and Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs Ware- housemen & Helpers Union Local 707, Interve- nor and General Teamsters, Local 179, Peti- tioner. Case 13–RC–21767 February 20, 2009 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered the objections to an election held on July 15 and 16, 2008, and the hearing officer’s report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursu- ant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of bal- lots shows 128 for the Petitioner, 230 for the Intervenor, 4 against the participating labor organizations, and 1 void ballot. There were no challenged ballots. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the ex- ceptions and briefs, has adopted the hearing officer’s findings2 and recommendations,3 and finds that the elec- 1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman, Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman, Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir- sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation, Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases. See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. 2 The Employer and Intervenor have excepted to some of the hearing officer’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule a hearing officer’s credibility resolutions unless the clear pre- ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are in- correct. Stretch-Tex Co., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find no basis for reversing the findings. 3 In adopting the hearing officer’s finding that the Intervenor en- gaged in impermissible electioneering, we rely on the conduct of Inter- venor Steward John Sorich and find it unnecessary to pass on whether the conduct of Intervenor Steward Louis Otero was also objectionable. Chairman Liebman finds it unnecessary to rely on the hearing officer’s discussion of the election margin. In finding that the election must be set aside, Member Schaumber re- lies solely on the hearing officer’s finding that Sorich engaged in pro- longed conversations with voters at the polling place in violation of the Board’s strict rule against such conduct. See Milchem, Inc., 170 NLRB 362 (1968). He therefore finds it unnecessary to pass on whether Sorich’s other conduct at or near the polls, which the hearing officer found constituted impermissible electioneering, was “sufficient to warrant an inference that it interfered with the free choice of the vot- ers.” See Boston Insulated Wire & Cable Co., 259 NLRB 1118, 1118– 1119 (1982). tion must be set aside and a new election held.4 [Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 4 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the hearing offi- cer’s recommendation to overrule the Petitioner’s Objections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. The Petitioner withdrew Objection 7 at the hearing.