Regency Electronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 627 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

REGENCY ELECTRONICS, INC.
Regency Electronics, Inc., and International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Case 25-RC-4811
August 1, 1972
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of
Second Election issued February 25, 1972,1 the
Board adopted the Regional Director's recommenda-
tion to set aside the stipulated election conducted
December 17, 1971, and directed that a second
election be held. A motion for reconsideration was
filed on March 6, 1972, and denied by the Board on
March 13, 1972.
On March 24, 1972, a second election was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 25 among the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the
balloting, the parties were furnished a tally which
showed that of the approximately 257 eligible voters,
133 votes were cast in favor of the Petitioner, 112
were cast against the Petitioner, and 10 votes were
challenged. The challenges were not sufficient in
number to affect the outcome of the election.
Thereafter, on March 31, 1972, the Employer filed
I Not punted in NLRB volumes
2 The Employer's request for oral argument in this case is hereby denied
as its exceptions and briefs adequately present the contentions of the
Employer
3 The Employer's exceptions I and 2 allege, in the main, that the Acting
Regional Director 's investigation was erroneously limited to questioning
only employees whose names the Employer supplied We find no merit in
the Employer's contentions It is well established that a party seeking to
have the Board overrule a Regional Director 's finding and recommenda-
tions to an election must supply specific evidence which prima facie would
warrant setting aside the election before the Board will direct a hearing or
require the Regional Director to pursue his investigation further . Bufkor-
Petzner Division, Inc, 169 NLRB 998. The Employer has failed to establish
the presence of sufficiently extraordinary circumstances which would
627
timely objections to the conduct affecting the second
election. On April 27, 1972, the Acting Regional
Director issued his report to the Board wherein he
recommended that the objections be overruled and a
certification of representative issue . Thereafter, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Acting
Regional Director's report on objections and a
supporting brief.
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 Acting Regional
Director's report, the Employer's exceptions thereto,
and its brief in support thereof, and the entire record
in this case2 and hereby adopts the Acting Regional
Director's findings and recommendations.3
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
the said labor organization is the exclusive represent-
ative of all employees in the unit found appropriate
herein for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment.
warrant our deviating from that rule in this case . We further find that none
of the Employer's exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's rulings raise
any substantial or material issues of fact requiring a hearing in this case
With respect to Objection 5, we need not and do not reach the
merits inasmuch as the conduct on which that objection rests did not
occur within the critical period for the second election . See Singer
Company, Wood Products Division, 161 NLRB 956, fn 2.
With respect to Objection 7, we agree to its rejection solely because
the proffered evidence showed no more than that Petitioner advised a
single employee it paid strike benefits of $ 12 a week . We do not adopt
or pass upon the Acting Regional Director's gratuitous comment that
even if Petitioner had stated , as the Employer apparently claimed, that
employees would lose no income during a strike, such a statement
would, nonetheless , afford no ground for setting aside the election
198 NLRB No. 87