Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1021 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SwiFT cR, COMPANY, EMPLOYER and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL No. 516, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER Case No. 16-RC-4110.-Decided March 10, 1950 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On August 23, 1949, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Six- teenth Region. Upon the completion of the election, a Tally of Bal- lots was issued and duly served by the Regional Director upon the parties concerned . The tally reveals that of the approximately 161 eligible voters, 161 cast ballots of which 64 were for the Petitioner, 81 for the Intervenor , United Packinghouse Workers, CIO, 9 against the participating labor organizations , and 7 were challenged. On August 26, 1949, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the election . Following investigation , the Regional Director , on September 19, 1949, issued a Report on Objections. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions. On October 24, 1949, upon consideration of the Regional Director's report and the exceptions thereto, the Board issued an order in which it (1) overruled Petitioner 's exception 11,1 (2) remanded this pro- ceeding to the Regional Director for a hearing for the purpose of adducing additional evidence with respect to Petitioner 's exceptions I and III , ( 3) directed the hearing officer to prepare and serve upon the parties a report containing findings of fact and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said exceptions, and (4 ) granted the parties 5 days after service of the hearing officer's report to file exceptions thereto. The hearing was held on November 29 and 30, 1949 , before James R. Webster, hearing officer. All parties appeared and participated. The 'Exception II was grounded on an alleged claim that the Board agent conducting the election did not permit the Petitioner's observers to remain with the ballot box at all times during the election. 88 NLRB No. 164. 1021 1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Petitioner and the Intervenor each filed briefs with the hearing officer. On January 10, 1950, the hearing officer issued his Report Containing Findings and Recommendations to the Board, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found that the Petitioner's exceptions were without merit and recommended that they be overruled. There- after, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report and a sup- porting brief. The Intervenor has also filed a brief. The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Report Containing Findings of Facts and Recommendations to the Board, the Petitioner's exceptions, the briefs filed by the parties, and the entire record in this case. For the reasons outlined below we agree with the hearing officer 's findings that the Petitioner's two exceptions are lacking in merit. Exception I: This exception is based on the allegation that Earl B. Cofer, the temporary president of the Intervenor, engaged in electioneering in prohibited areas 3 during the election.4 Cofer is a rank-and-file em- ployee of the Employer whose hours of work are from 12 to 8 p.m. daily. He was eligible to vote in the election and cast his ballot during the morning polling period. The polling was conducted during the hours from 6 to 8 a. in. and from 3 to 5 p. in. in the employees' lunch- room which is located on the plant premises. According to the stipu- lated testimony of Hazel Williams,' sometime between 7: 30 and 8 a. in. on the morning of the election, Cofer told a group of employees who were standing near the door of the lunchroom, "Go right in and cast your vote for the CIO. We've got it won. We've got it fixed and you can't go wrong by voting CIO." Similarly, Lunia Ferrell testified that during the afternoon rest period, she overheard Cofer advise several employees with whom he was engaged in conversation "Vote CIO, folks, we've got it won." This conversation, according to Ferrell, oc- curred in a hallway near the office of one of the Employer's officials. Although Cofer denied having made any of the statements attributed to him by Williams and Ferrell, the hearing officer credited the testi- 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds , and Murdock]. 3 The record shows that a few days before the election , a Board agent instructed all the parties not to engage in electioneering on any part of Employer 's premises on the day of the election. This allegation appears in the Petitioner ' s exceptions to the hearing officer's report. s Williams was unable to attend the hearing because of the serious illness of her mother. The parties stipulated as to the testimony she would have given had she appeared at the hearing. SWIFT & COMPANY 1023 mony of Williams and Ferrell. We accept the hearing officer's cred- ibility findings. The foregoing evidence does not, in our opinion, establish illegal conduct as to have influenced the election results. While we do not condone Cofer's conduct, we are not persuaded that the two isolated in- stances of electioneering by Cofer, an eligible voter, albeit the tempo- rary president of the Intervenor, affected the results of the election. Accordingly, we shall overrule exception I. Exception III: This exception is based on the fact that sometime during the polling, an unidentified individual deposited in the ballot box one of the Inter- venor's campaign leaflets. The leaflet contained, among other things, a sample ballot identical to those appearing in the Board's notices of the election posted at the plant except that the sample ballot in the. leaflet was marked with an "X" in the square provided for designating the Intervenor. Following this illustration which appeared at the bottom of the leaflet were bold lettered words directing the employees to mark their ballots like the sample ballot. It is the Petitioner's con- tention that the appearance of this leaflet in the ballot box suggests either (1) that it was cast by an ineligible voter thereby indicating that the Board agent in charge of the election was lax in observing the election rules or (2) that the practice of "chain balloting" was followed in the election. According to the Petitioner, this practice is a scheme whereby the first voter of a group of eligible voters deposits a sheet of paper instead of his ballot in the ballot box and after leaving the voting area, marks his ballot and turns it over to a second voter in the group. This voter uses the marked ballot for his vote and gives the one he obtained at the polls to a third voter who follows the same pro- cedure as the second voter as do all the remaining participants to the scheme. The last voter, however casts two ballots. We find nothing in the facts or circumstances of this case which justify either of the Petitioner's speculative claims with respect to the leaflet. As to the first claim, the record does not show instances of voting by ineligible voters or in any way indicate laxity on the part of the Board agent in safeguarding the Board's election procedure. Furthermore, observers for the Petitioner and the Intervenor were in attendance at the polls during the voting periods along with the Board agent, both of whom certified "that the ballot box was protected in the interest of a fair and secret vote." These circumstances together with the fact that the number of votes cast equalled the number of eligible voters, constrains us to reject the Petitioner's contention that an ineli- gible voter was responsible for the leaflet's presence in the ballot box. 1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As for the Petitioner's chain balloting argument, the record contains not even a hint that this practice was followed by the voters. We, therefore, find this line of argument untenable. In view of our findings, and our belief that, without more , the mere presence of the leaflet among the ballots does not afford a basis for setting aside the election, we shall. overrule exception III. As the Tally of Ballots shows that the Intervenor has secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify the Intervenor as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS I-fEREBY CERTIFIED that United Packinghouse Workers of Amer- ica, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Muskogee, Oklahoma, plant including truck drivers but excluding management employees, office and clerical employees, sales employees, solicitors, professional employees, plant protection employees, the superintendent, all foremen, hatcherymen, assistant hatcherymen, the chief engineer, and all other supervisors as defined by the Act, as amended, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pur- suant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of col- lective bargaining, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- ployment, and other conditions of employment. REPORT CONTAINING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER On August 23, 1949, the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board , conducted a Stipulated Representation Election among all pro- duction and maintenance employees including truck drivers of Swift and Com- pany, Muskogee , Oklahoma , hereinafter referred to as the Company . The peti- tioning union was the Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Helpers Union, Local No. 516, AFL, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner , and the United Packinghouse Work- ers of America, CIO , intervened , hereinafter referred to as Intervenor . Sixty- four votes were cast for the Petitioner and 81 votes were cast for the Intervenor. Nine votes were cast against participating labor organizations and 7 ballots were challenged (Board's Exhibit 1). A Certification of Conduct of Elec- tion was signed by observers of all parties (Board's Exhibit 2). The Petitioner duly filed Objections to Election (Board's Exhibit 3), and the Regional Director, Sixteenth Region, National Labor Relations Board, issued his Report on Objections ( Board's Exhibit 4) recommending that said objections be overruled. Copies thereof were duly served on all parties ( Board's Exhibit 5). The Peti- tioner then duly filed Exceptions to Report on Objections ( Board's Exhibit 6) and the Board on October 24, 1949, issued an Order Remanding Proceeding to Re- gional Director for Further Hearing, ordering that a further hearing be held for SWIFT & COMPANY 1025 the purpose of adducing additional evidence with respect to Petitioner's Excep- tions Nos. I and III, and ordering that the Hearing Officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report containing findings and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said Exceptions. Said Order of the Board further specified that within 5 days of receipt of such report, any party may file with the Board in Washington, D. C., an original and six copies of exceptions thereto, with said party also serving copies thereof upon each of the other parties, and filing a copy thereof with the Regional Director (Board's Exhibit 7). The Regional Director, Six- teenth Region of the Board, then issued Notice of Hearing (Board's Exhibit 8) which was served on all parties (Board's Exhibit 9), and hearing was held in Muskogee, Oklahoma, on November 29 and 30, 1949, with all parties represented. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the objections was afforded all parties. The election was conducted on Tuesday, August 23, 1949, in the Employees' Lunch Room at the Company's Muskogee, Oklahoma, Dairy and Poultry Plant, from 6 a. in. to 8 a. in. and from 3 p. in. to 5 p. in. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). ISSUES The issue presented with reference to Exception I of Petitioner and the testi- mony adduced in connection therewith is whether or not the conduct of Earl B. Cofer, temporary president of the Intervenor and/or of Gobel F. Cravens, field representative of Intervenor , and/or of an unidentified person constituted im- proper electioneering of such a nature as to warrant setting the election aside. The issue presented with reference to Exception III of Petitioner and the testi- mony adduced thereunder is whether or not the presence in the ballot box, at the counting of ballots , of an electioneering or propaganda document of Intervenor containing thereon a marked sample ballot warrants the setting aside of the election. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Hearing Officer makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Conduct of unidentified person. T. E. Hogle, whose wife is employed by Swift and Company, took his wife to work about 7: 30 a. m. the morning of the election. After he had let her out across the street from the east end of the building, and as he started to drive off, an unidentified person approached him and asked, "Why don't you go vote?", and upon being informed by Mr. Hogle that he was not employed there, stated, "Oh, I don't care. Tell them you are CIO and vote anyhow" (Tr. p. 205). These remarks of an unidentified person to one not an employee of Swift and Company and made off the premises of the Company are regarded by the Hearing Officer as irrelevant and inconsequential either standing alone or in conjunction with the other conduct complained of. 2. Conduct of Gobel F. Cravens. On the day of the election at about 11: 48 a. in., Gobel F. Cravens, field repre- sentative of Intervenor, drove into the Company's parking lot and parked in the northeast corner thereof to the east and north of the building and about 15 feet from Main Street. He was accompanied by Mr. Buck Whitaker, another repre- 1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentative of the Intervenor. He saw Mr. Earl B. Cofer, temporary president of the Intervenor, across the parking lot and called to him, and told him to have Mrs. Keith and Mr. Hoss come down to the area. Mr. Cravens and Mr. Whitaker waited in the car awhile and then walked to a tree on Company premises in a vacant space across the railroad tracks. (Board's Exhibit 13 is a rough sketch of the premises.) There they talked with Mrs. Keith and Mr. Hoss for about 5 or 6 minutes, and then they departed taking Mrs. Keith to her home. Mr. Cravens and Mr. Whitaker had no electioneering material with them at the time, and they spoke to no other employee other than Cofer, Keith, and Hoss, and this occasion was the only occasion of Mr. Cravens' presence on the premises of the Company that day until just before 5 p. in., when he and Mr. Whitaker carne upon the property for the counting of the ballots. Mrs. Keith was the election observer for the Intervenor, and Mr. Cravens' conversation with her pertained to the conduct of the voting and the approximate number that had voted, and he instructed her to advise him of any irregularities before signing certification of conduct of election (Tr. pp. 353 and 504). Mr. _ Hoss had been requested the day before the election by Mr. Cravens to bring the employees from Checota, Oklahoma, up to vote, and told him that he (Cravens) or someone else would carry them home. Mr. Cravens' conversa- tion with Hess at noon of the election day was as to whether any person from Checota had come with Hoss. Hoss informed him that there was no one without transportation (Tr. p. 376). There is no evidence that Mr. Cravens or Mr. Whitaker engaged in any elec- tioneering on the company premises on election day. The Hearing Officer finds nothing more than their "mere presence" and that only on the parking lot and at a time when the polls were closed. It is not believed that this standing alone or in conjunction with other acts complained of raises any substantial or material issue with respect to the conduct affecting the results of the election. M2iteal Distributing Company, May 1949, 83 NLRB 463. 3. Conduct of Earl B. Cofer. Mr. Earl B. Cofer, a rank-and-file employee of Swift and Company, and a temporary president of a local union of the Intervenor, actively participated in Intervenor's organizational drive among the employees of the Company. He was employed in the feeding station of the Company and commenced work at noon each work day (Tr. pp. 100 and 102). On the day of the election he came down to the Company during the morning voting period and stood on and around the south dock in the vicinity of the polls from approximately 7: 30 a. in. to after the polls closed at 8 a. in. (Tr. pp. 109, 163, 317). He voted sometime during this half hour (Tr. p. 110). There were several people on the dock and going and coming, and Mr. Cofer spoke greetings to them. He could not recall any-specific person or conversation (Tr. p. 113). However, upon being recalled to the stand later, he testified of conversations that morning with Hazel Williams and Lois Hunt (Tr. p. 309). He later testified that his conversation with Lois Hunt was in the afternoon (Tr. p. 334). Mr. Cofer testified that his conversation with Hazel Williams was as follows : Mr: COTTON. Can you tell him what happened that morning between you and Hazel Williams? The WITNESS. Yes, Sir; I didn't start the conversation. She spoke to me. As my attorney says that I can, I will. SWIFT & COMPANY 1027 Hearing Officer WEBSTER. Just tell what was said. A. She called me over there and as I went in to vote she says, "Did you ask Mr. Cravens about that over at Oklahoma City?" I said, "Yes." And she said, "And what did he say?" I said, "There was no truth in it." I said, "You better get out of here in place of trying to scatter propaganda in here and in the voting booth and get outside if you want to talk to -me." Then she spoke to me again as I started out. By Mr. WELLS : Q. What was said then? A. I told her ,the same thing and went on outside and she didn't come out. The parties stipulated that Hazel Williams, who could not appear because of the serious illness of her mother, would have testified that (Tr. pp. 337 and 339) : Earl Cofer in her hearing said, "Go right in and cast your vote for the CIO. We've got it won. We've got it fixed and you can't go wrong by voting CIO." She stated Opal Webber and Minnie Slape were in the group spoken to . . . She stated that the place was standing by the door of the lunchroom and was the morning of the election sometime between 7:30 and 8 a. in. The parties also stipulated that if called to testify, witnesses Opal Webber and Minnie Slape would have testified as shown in their respective affidavits, offered and received in evidence as Board's Exhibits 21 and 22 (Tr. p. 340). Opal Webber stated : "I saw Earl Cofer come up on the dock with Billy Sue DePriest and Minnie Slape. Billy and Minnie voted and came outside . Earl Cofer said to the group, 'I couldn't sleep so thought I'd come down.' That's all I remember him saying. I had already voted. I didn't see him later that day. I didn't hear him trying to influence anybody's vote. In fact I didn't hear anybody trying to influence anyone else's vote." Minnie Slape stated : "As I walked in the plant area from the southeast I saw Earl Cofer, CIO .Union President , getting out of his car in the parking area in front of the plant. I was with Billy Sue DePriest. Earl Cofer said, 'Are you going in to vote?' I replied, 'Yes.' I walked on . . . Cofer stayed on the dock outside while Billy and I voted. When we came out of the voting room, Opal Webb and Bessie Fields were on the dock in front of the voting room. Cofer was standing there too by himself. He did not talk to Billy or I. I didn't hear Cofer say anything to anybody about the election when I was out on the south dock after I voted." The Hearing Officer finds that Cofer did make the statements in the presence of Hazel Williams as testified to by her. Her stipulated testimony is not con- tradicted by that of Cofer, nor is it contradicted by an affidavit prepared by her and submitted as Board ' s Exhibit 23, nor is it contradicted by the stipulated testimony of Opal Webber and Minnie Slape. Webber testified that all she re- members him saying is, "I couldn ' t sleep so thought I'd come down ." Slape stated merely that she did aaot hear him say anything about the election after she voted . "I didn't hear Cofer say anything to anybody about the election when I was out on the south dock after I voted." 882191-51-66 1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Hearing Officer also finds that Mr. Cofer also had conversations that morning with Billy DePriest with reference to her eligibility to vote. The exact nature of the conversations is not clear (Tr. pp. 320 and 321). Mr. Cofer testified (Tr. p. 320) : Q. Did you all drive down there together? A. No sir. Q. Just happened to meet them there on the lot? A. I got out of the car and they was just a few feet from me and we walked up there to the dock together. Q. And at that time did you talk about the fact that some of the votes were going to be challenged? A. Not-that some of the votes were going to be cast? Q. Going to be challenged. A. No, not that I recall. Q. Didn't you know there had been quite an issue raised about that at a conference before? A. There probably was. Q. You knew that at that time? A. Yes sir, I knew it. Q. And you knew that DePriest and Slape and Mary White were people whose right to vote was in question? A. Yes sir, I did. Q. And you wanted them to vote, didn't you? A. Yes sir. In the afternoon voting period, during which the employees have a 10-minute rest period, Mr. Cofer took and used his rest period at about 3 p. m. in the usual manner-drinking a "coke" and relaxing and talking with other employees in the building and on the south dock within a few feet of the entrance to the lunchroom where the polls were (Tr. pp. 118, 119, 124, 126, and 167). To get the "coke" it was necessary for him to enter the lunchroom. In answer to a question as to his conversation while standing on the dock, Mr. Cofer's testimony appears on page 124 as follows : Q. Now, while you were standing there drinking your coke did you talk to anybody? A. There were people coming by and I spoke to them, yes sir. Q. You told them to vote right? A. That I don't recall telling anybody to vote right. Q. Will you say that you did not tell them that? A. I don ' t recall. During the afternoon rest period , Mr. Cofer also had a conversation with Mr. Jesse Stonebarger , another employee, near Mr. Haven's office inside the building near the hallway leading to the south dock and the cafe . The conversation was reported by Cofer to have been as follows ( Tr. p. 128) : A. He called me and I stopped and he asked me, he says , "Do you think you are going to win the election?" and I said, "Yes sir." And he said to me, he says , "Well, I have no doubt but what you will , but Jenkins said he was going to protest it if we did ." That was the day of the election. During the rest period , Cofer also had conversations on the south dock with George Rollman, who held the office of guard in the local union of the Intervenor, and Mr. Hoss, previously mentioned in this report ( Tr. pp. 134 and 135). SWIFT & COMPANY 1029 Following the conversation with Mr. Stonebarger, Cofer testified of another conversation with another employee (Tr. p. 170) : Q. After you had that conversation with him, did you continue on up the stairs? A. No, there was a boy up there, and he said, "Cofer, do you think you are going to win?" And I said, "Certainly, I do." And he said, "You are pretty sure of yourself, aren't you?" Also during the rest period, Cofer while getting change in another part of the building for a "coke" had a conversation with a Mr. Aggie Stonebarger, which Cofer testified of as follows (Tr. p. 173) : Q. Did you talk to him that afternoon? A. Yes sir, when I went in to get change, I asked him if he had voted. Q. You asked him if he had voted? A. Yes sir, I asked him if he had voted. Q. What did he tell you? A. No, he said he hadn't voted, but they held him up in there on voting ; he thought he was going to get to vote. The Hearing Officer finds that Witness Lunia Ferrell credibly testified on page 261 of the transcript that Cofer stated in the hallway near Mr. Haven's office in the presence of approximately eight employees, "Vote CIO, folks. We've got it won" (Tr. p. 261). Mr. Cofer, on page 331 of the transcript, denies making this statement, but this denial and a considerable portion of Mr. Cofer's testimony is not considered credible. The parties also stipulated that Chester Olson, the Company's election observer, would testify as shown in his affidavit in evidence as Board's Exhibit 24. Mr. Olson stated that: The only incident, . . . having anything to do with the election occurred shortly after the polls opened in the afternoon. Earl Cofer, an employee, told Lois Hunt, an ex-employee not on the eligible list to be sure to vote and explained to her that "Your ballot will be sealed in an envelope." They then left. This conversation occurred in the opposite end of the voting room. Lois Hunt later came in to vote and after it was explained that she was not on the eligible list, she left without insisting on a ballot. Cofer testifed as follows with reference to his conversation with Lois Hunt (Tr. p. 310) : Q. Well, do you know a Lois Hunt? A. Yes sir. Q. Wasnt she there too? A. Yes sir. Q. Wasn't there some argument about whether she was eligible to vote? A. Yes, she spoke to me inside, the same as this Hazel Williams, and I spoke there going out, and she spoke to me and I told her we'd have to get out of the voting booth or voting room to talk. Q. Didn't the question come up as to whether or not she was eligible to vote? A. Yes sir. Q. Didn't you tell her to go vote? A. No sir. Q. What did you tell her? A. I told her that she'd have to see Mr. Cravens and give her his telephone number. That is, after she went outside all this taken place outside. And 1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD give her this telephone number and told her they had decided the day before the election who was eligible, and she'd have to see him ; I didn't know who was eligible. The Hearing Officer credits the testimony of Chester Olson, and finds that Cofer's testimony which differs therefrom is not credible. It is noted that Cofer is a rank-and-file employee (although also the temporary president of the local union of the Intervenor) and in this respect this case dif- fers from the Detroit Creamery case, 60 NLRB 178, where a union vice president who was not an employee of company involved stationed himself in the path of the voters during polling hours. Quoting the decision: "Gibson was not an employee of the Company and had no business with the Company warranting his presence in the plant on the day of the election." Being merely a fellow employee, Cofer's presence was not improper or unusual and could not carry the same significance and import as a nonemployee union official. And his remarks and statements were certainly not intimidating, although he was found to have on two occasions ,(from the testimony of Hazel Williams and Lunia Ferrell) made such electioneer- ing statements as, "Vote CIO, folks ; we've got it won." From the Stonewall Cotton Mills case, January 1948, 75 NLRB 762, the following is quoted : The Employer alleges incidents of electioneering by union representatives in prohibited areas while the polls were open. The evidence supporting this allegation merely shows that Flora Jones, whose official union position is a matter of dispute, shouted to a group of employees on their way to vote, "Vote for the A. F. of L." We regard such evidence as inadequate to substantiate an allegation of illegal conduct affect- ing the results of the election. It is not believed that the presence and/or statements made by employee Cofer could have created an atmosphere which would have rendered improbable a free choice in the election conducted August 23, 1949. Mutual Distributing Company, May 1949, 83 NLRB 463; Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, October 1949, 86 NLRB 662; Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, 80 NLRB 1239; and Stonewall Cotton Mills, 75 NLRB 762. 4. Findings of Fact on Petitioner's Exception III. When the Board Election Officer emptied the contents of the ballot box upon a table for counting, it was observed that a propaganda or electioneering document, which had been distributed by the Intervenor, was folded among the ballots. This document is in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. No evidence was presented as to the responsibility for the placing of the propa- ganda or electioneering document in the ballot box. The record shows that the number of valid ballots counted equaled the number of voters casting ballots (Tr. p. 84). Therefore, it is not believed that the presence in the ballot box of the propa- ganda document had any effect on the conduct or outcome of the election, or con- stituted any breach of conduct of the election. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, and pur- suant to the Board's Order Remanding Proceeding, the Hearing Officer recom- mends that the Objections of the Petitioner be overruled. JAMES R. WEBSTER, Hearing Officer.