Weyerhaeuser Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 1153 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
Weyerhaeuser Company and Highway & Local Motor
Freight Employees Local Union No. 667, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Petitioner. Case 26-RC-5960
September 18, 1979
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND TRUESDALE
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered determinative chal-
lenges in, and objections to, an election held on May
10, 1979,1 and the Regional Director's report recom-
mending disposition of same. The Board has reviewed
the record in light of the exceptions and brief, and
hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations. 2
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that a hearing he held before a
duly designated hearing officer to resolve the substan-
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 37 votes for, and 32 votes against, the
Petitioner; there were 5 challenged ballots, a number sufficient to affect the
results.
2 We agree with the Regional Director that the challenge to the ballot of
Edgar Webb be sustained and that the Employer's Objections 2, 3, 4, 5. 6.
and 7 be overruled. Accordingly, and as the Regional Director noted in his
report, sustaining the challenge to the ballot of Edgar Webb will render the
remaining four challenges nondeterminative of the results of the election. In
light of this fact, and pursuant to the Regional Director's recommendation.
we find it unnecessary to open and count the ballot of Claude Smith, despite
the Regional Director's finding that Smith was an eligible voter. Further-
more, we find that no resolution need be made of the challenges to the
ballots of Frank Conely, Pat Soto, and Janie Barnett and, therefore, we find
it unnecessary to include for hearing the issue of their eligibility.
The alleged threats of "violent reprisal" on which our dissenting colleague
would set aside the election apparently refer to statements allegedly made by
a union agent at a meeting of unit employees. According to one employee
witness who was present at the meeting, the union representative stated, "llf
anyone crossed the picket line then he wouldn't cross no more." According
to the same witness, the union agent also said at the same meeting that "one
guy had crossed a picket line once and he wouldn't cross no more." One has
to have a fertile imagination to find that these ambiguous remarks constitute
threats of "violent reprisal." While we find these remarks to be ambiguous,
we also find that they are in any event unrelated to the outcome of the
tial and material factual issues raised by the Employ-
er's Objection 1.
IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that the hearing officer
designated for the purpose of conducting such hear-
ing shall prepare and cause to be served on the parties
a report containing resolutions of the credibility of
witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to
the Board as to the disposition of said issues. Within
10 days from the date of issuance of such report, ei-
ther party may file with the Board in Washington,
D.C., eight copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately
upon the filing of such exceptions. the party filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof on the other parties
and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that the proceeding herein
be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional Director
for Region 26 for further proceedings consistent here-
with, including arranging such hearing, and that said
Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to
issue notice thereof.
MEMBER PENELLO, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I agree with the majority's disposition of the chal-
lenged ballots and with its decision to direct a hearing
on the Employer's Objection 1. I also agree that the
Employer's Objection 7 should be overruled.
However, contrary to my colleagues in the major-
ity, I would find merit in the Employer's Objections 2,
3, 4, 5, and 6 insofar as they allege that the Petitioner
threatened unit employees with violent reprisals
should they attempt to cross any picket lines estab-
lished by the Petitioner. For the reasons set forth in
my dissenting opinion in Hickory Springs Manlufac-
turing Company. 239 NLRB 641 (1978), I would find
that such threats, if made, constitute objectionable
conduct warranting setting aside the election. I
would, therefore, order that these objections be con-
solidated for hearing with the Employer's Objection I
to resolve the Employer's claim that the Petitioner
made such threats of picket line violence.3
election or to the way the employees voted in the election and, therefore,
provide no basis for setting the election aside. Hickorv Springs .anufacrlur-
ing Company, 239 NLRB 641 (1978).
3 The characterization of the Petitioner's alleged threats assumes the salid-
ity of the statements proffered by the Employer's witnesses to the Regional
Director dunng his investigation, since the majonty has overruled this objec-
tion of the Employer without first proceeding to a hearing.
244 NLRB No. 178
1153