Weyerhaeuser Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1994

315 N.L.R.B. 963 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

963
315 NLRB No. 141
WEYERHAEUSER CO.
1 The Union has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the hearing officer. It is the Board’s established policy not to over-
rule a hearing officer’s credibility resolutions unless the clear pre-
ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolu-
tions are incorrect. Stretch-Tex Co., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for revers-
ing the findings.
In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the hearing of-
ficer’s recommendation that the objections labeled ‘‘These and Other
Acts’’ be overruled.
The Union has requested oral argument. The request is denied as
the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties.
2 We overruled contrary holdings in St. Francis Hospital, supra,
and similar cases.
Weyerhaeuser Co. and United Paperworkers Inter-
national Union, AFL–CIO, CLC, Petitioner.
Case 11–RC–5910
December 16, 1994
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, BROWNING, AND COHEN
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an election
held April 8 and 9, 1993, and the hearing officer’s re-
port recommending disposition of them. The election
was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election
Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 93 for and 116
against the Petitioner, with 14 challenged ballots, an
insufficient number to affect the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions and briefs and has adopted the hearing offi-
cer’s findings and recommendations to the extent con-
sistent with this decision, and finds that the election
must be set aside and a new election be held.1
The hearing officer recommended that the Petition-
er’s eight enumerated objections be overruled. We find
it unnecessary to pass on Objections 1 through 7 be-
cause we find merit in the Petitioner’s exception to the
hearing officer’s recommendation that Objection 8 be
overruled. In Objection 8, the Petitioner contends as
follows: ‘‘The Employer, through its supervisors
and/or agents, attempted to influence the outcome of
the election by withholding full names and addresses
of employees on the voter eligibility list.’’
The voter eligibility list provided by the Employer
pursuant to the requirements of Excelsior Underwear,
156 NLRB 1236 (1966), listed the last names, first and
middle initials, and addresses of employees. The Union
contended that the Excelsior list was deficient because
it did not contain the employees’ complete first names.
The hearing officer, citing St. Francis Hospital, 249
NLRB 180 (1980), found that the Employer’s provid-
ing a list containing only surnames and initials was not
conduct willfully designed to impede the Union’s com-
munication with employees. The hearing officer there-
fore recommended that the objection be overruled.
The Board recently held in North Macon Health
Care Facility, 315 NLRB 359 (1994), that an em-
ployer must provide the full first and last names of
employees on a voter eligibility list in order to ‘‘sub-
stantially comply’’ with the Excelsior list requirement.2
The Employer did not provide the full names of em-
ployees. Accordingly, we will set aside the election in
this case and direct a new election.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
MEMBER COHEN, dissenting.
For the reasons fully explained in my dissent in
North Macon Health Care Facility, 315 NLRB 359
(1994), I would not set aside this election result based
on employer conduct that was in compliance with
then-extant law and practice.
Also, I would adopt the hearing officer’s rec-
ommendation to overrule Objections 1 through 7 and,
in the absence of exceptions, pro forma adopt the hear-
ing officer’s recommendation that objections labeled
‘‘These and Other Acts’’ be overruled. Accordingly, I
would certify the results of the election.