Wayne Metal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 392 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wayne Metal Company, Inc. and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Case 17-
RC-8743
November 7, 1979
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, an election was conducted on June
13, 1979, among the employees in the appropriate
unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed
that of approximately 69 voters, 67 cast ballots of
which 36 were for and 30 against the Petitioner, and I
was challenged. The challenged ballot was not suffi-
cient in number to affect the results of the election.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to
the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation
and, on August 24, 1979, issued and duly served on
the parties his report on the objections in which he
recommended that the objections be overruled and
that the Board issue a Certification of Representative.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
I. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the fol-
lowing employees at the Employer's Marshfield, Mis-
souri, location constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees, truckdrivers, lead-
men, and plant superintendent, but excluding of-
fice clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the objections, the
Regional Director's report, and the exceptions, and
hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings.' con-
clusions, and recommendations.2
Accordingly, as the tally shows that the Petitioner
has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast, we
shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the certified unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, and that, pursuant to Sec-
tion 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the said labor organization is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the unit found
appropriate herein for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
The Regional Director recommended. inter alia, that an objection of the
Employer to a threat of harm made by employee Robert Neff to employee
Robert Loe be overruled on the following grounds ( ) Thre is no evidence
that NeffWs conduct intimidated Loe in casting his ballot. (2) Neffs statement
was not sanctioned by the Union, and (3) Neffs statement was isolated and
did not create a general atmosphere of fear and coercion which rendered a
fair election impossible. We disavow ( I ) as it is well established that proof of
coercive effect is unnecessary in determining whether conduct may reason-
ably be said to tend to interfere with an election See The Denver Post, 245
NlRB No. 14 (1979). However, we find that the objections in question has
no merit
2 We ind that the Employer's exceptions lo the Regional Director's report
raise no material or substantial issues of fact or law which warrant reversal
of the Regional Director's findings or require a hearing. In adopting the
Regional Director's recommendation that the Emploer's objections based
on allegations of material misrepresentations be overruled. Member Murphv
relies on her concurrence in Shopping Kart Food MIrket. Incr, 228 NRB
1311 (1977). See her dissent in ;eneral Knit f ( Calirnia, Inc, 239 NlRB
619 11978)
246 NLRB No. 61
392