The American Thread Co.

956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD THE AMERICAN THREAD COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. ; Cases. Nos. 10-RM 55 and 10-RC- 1020. October 18, 1951 Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration and Motion Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec- tion," an election was held in the above-entitled proceeding on Septem- ber 14, 1950, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. On September 19, 1950, the Peti- tioner filed "Objections to Conduct of Election and Conduct Affecting Results of Election." On June 8, 1951, the Regional Director issued his report on election, objections to election, and recommendations to the Board. On June 18, 1951, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Thereafter, on August.10,1951, the Board issued an order directing a hearing on the issues of fact raised concern- iiig conduct affecting the election. On September 14, 1951, the Em- ployer filed the present "Petition for Reconsideration and Motion to Amend Order Directing Hearing." In its petition and motion, the Employer moves the Board to with- draw the order directing a hearing on the issues raised by the objec- tions, upon the ground that 1 year has now elapsed since the election herein was held. In support of its position, the Employer relies upon those earlier representation cases in which the Board declined to pass upon the merits of objections to elections where more than a year had, elapsed since the election.' In such cases the Board dismissed the objections without prejudice to the immediate filing of a new petition. We are well aware, as the Employer argues, that the lapse of 1 year since the holding of the election has removed the statutory prohibition against holding-another election,2 and that dismissal of the objections without prejudice to. the filing of a new petition would enable the Petitioner, or any other labor organization, immediately to seek a new election. However, upon reconsideration of the Board's earlier decisions, we have concluded that the parties to an election in which, objections have-been filed are entitled to an adjudication of the issues,. to the litigation of which they may have devoted considerable effort, time, and expense. Moreover, in accordance with the Board's policy- of zealously guarding its election procedures, we believe it both appro, 1 See, e. g. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 91 NLRB No. 209; W. C. Nabors Co., 89' NLRB 538 , Barnhart Davis Company, 80 NLRB 977 ; Edo Aircraft Corporation, 76 NLRB- 447; Desmond's Inc., 75 NLRB 1242; F. A. Smith Manufacturvng Inc., 74 NLRB 544; Neptune Motor Company, 74 NLRB 390. These cases, and other similar cases dismissing- objections upon the ground that 1 year had elapsed since the holding of the election, are overruled to the extent that they are inconsistent with our decision herein. 2 Section 9 ( c) (3) of the Act. 96 NLRB No. 146. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., OF AMERICA 957 priate and desirable for the Board ordinarily to decide the issues raised by objections, thus laying down standards of conduct for future elections. 'Therefore the Board will normally resolve the issues raised by objections, even though more than a year may have elapsed since the date of the election. Accordingly, we shall deny the Employer's petition for reconsideration and motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Employer's petition for reconsidera- tion and motion to amend order directing hearing be, and they hereby are, denied. .INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS, HELPERS, DOCKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL No. 41, A. F. OF L. and INTERNATIONAL UNION5 UNITED AUTO- MOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 447, A. F. OF L. Case No. 17-CC-15. October 19,1951 Decision and Order On July 25, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and support- ing briefs. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations except as modified herein. As found by the Trial Examiner, the charging union was certified by the Board on December 23, 1949, as the representative of certain ,employees of the Company. For a period of about 5 weeks in May .and June 1951,2 the Respondent, which was engaged in a campaign at that time to organize employees of automobile dealers in the area, picketed the Company's premises. During that period employees of ,other employers, who approached the Company's premises for the purpose of making deliveries or performing services there, turned , Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection -with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. 2 The Trial Examiner inadvertently found that the picketing began in May 1950. 96 NLRB No. 145.