Danita Hosiery Manufacturing Co., Inc.

In the Matter of DANITA Hosiiui MANL`rAC7 ul uN u Co., INC., EMPLOYER aiul AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WoRuERS, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 1,0-R-1878 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION January 16, 1947 On December 12, 1946, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification, in which it overruled Objections to the election filed by the Employer for reasons stated in the Regional Director's Report on Objections. It was noted in the Supplemental Decision and Certi- fication that no exceptions to the Regional Director's Report had been filed. After the issuance of the Supplemental Decision and Certification, Josef Jaffe, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, counsel for the Employer, informed the Board that he had not received a copy of the Regional Director's Report on Objections., The Board thereupon communi- cated with counsel, enclosing a copy of the Regional Director's Report, and advising him that he had until December 30, 1946, to file Excep- tions to the Report on behalf of the Employer. Subsequently, on December 23, 1946, Exceptions to the Report were filed by counsel for the Employer. In its original Objections the Employer requested that the election be set aside, averring, in part: 1. That the date of election was fixed on a national holiday. 2. That the date of election was fixed on a State holiday. 3. That the election day was fixed on a General Election date, which made it impossible for any of the executive help of the Employer to be present or to act as observers, as permitted by the National Labor Relations Board. The Regional Director, in his Report on Objections, recommended that the objections be overruled, stating as follows : While it is true that the election was held on November 5, which was the general election day, it does not appear that a representative number of employees were unable to vote for that reason since 54 out of the approximately 60 eligible voters ap- ' A copy of the-Report was, however , served upon the Employer at Crossville, Tennessee. 72NLRB,No26 162 DANITA HOSIERY MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 163 peared and cast valid ballots. The Employer was represented by an observer who signed both the Tally of Ballots and the Certifica- tion on Conduct of Election and under the limitations usually prescribed by the Regional Director as to appointment of observ- ers none of the executives of the employer would have been per- mitted to act as observers since only non-supervisory employees are permitted to act as such. In its Exceptions filed on December 23, 1946, the Employer set forth the following allegations : 1. The employer had no opportunity to check the list of eligible voters. 2. The employer had no opportunity to challenge the votes of employees voting who may not have been eligible to vote. 3. It is denied that the employer was represented by any ob- server authorized to act for the employer or who was authorized to sign the Tally of Ballots and the Certification on Conduct of Election. 4. That the holding of the election on November 5, 1946 consti- tuted a substantial and material issue which adversely affected the rights of the employer. The first allegation of the Exceptions raises new matter in the nature of an Objection. And the second and third allegations do likewise, for the Employer merely contended in its Objections that it was de- prived of the right to representation at the election by executive help because the balloting was conducted on a "General Election date." Inasmuch as the time for filing Objections to the election expired long before the Employer's Exceptions were submitted, these three items have not been seasonably advanced. Furthermore, as respects all four allegations and the Employer's original Objections, the Employer indicates in its Objections that it received advance.notice that the election was to be held on November 5, 1946, and it was consequently afforded every opportunity to safe- guard its rights by having an authorized observer present at the polls who could verify the eligibility list and challenge voters.' That November 5, 1946, was a political election day does not persuade us that not one person was available who could have qualified and acted as an observer fo-r the Employer.3 Nor do we find any merit in the contention implicit in the Employer's Objections that a Board election is invalid if conducted on a "holiday." 2 Assuming, as the Employer asserts, that the observer who signed the Tally of Ballots and Certification on Conduct of Election on behalf of the Employer was not duly authorized by the Employer to do so 3 The polls in the Board election were apparently open for only 2 hours : fioru 2 30 to 4 30 p.m. 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD For these reasons, as well as those contained in the Regional Di- rector's Report, the Employer's Objections and Exceptions are re- jected, and the Certification which we issued on December 12, 1946, shall be permitted to stand. CHAIRMAN HERZOC took no part in the consideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision.