Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc.

DON &LLEN MIDTOWN CHEVROLFIT, INC. 879 not be allowed to vote- inasmuch as they have no such reasonable ex- pectancy. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc. and Local 259, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. O-RC-7117. August 19,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On January 28, 1955, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the, Second Region among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that there were 72 ballots cast, of which 16 ballots were for Local 259, UAW-CIO '(the Petitioner) ; 51 ballots for West Side Employees Association, Inde= pendent (the Intervenor) ; no ballots were cast against the participat' ing labor organizations; and 6 ballots were challenged. On February 2, 1955, the Petitioner in timely fashion filed with the Regional Di- rector and served on the parties its objections 'to election. After an investigation, the Regional Director, on May 17,1955, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections. In his report, the Regional Director found that the objections raised certain substan- tial and material issues of fact as to whether the Employer interfered with the election, and recommended that a hearing on objections'be held. ' Exceptions to the report on objections were timely filed by the Employer and the Intervenor. Among other things, the Employer excepts to the generalized form of the objections filed by the Petitioner, contending that these objec- tions are invalid because they fail to meet the requirements for filing objections in the published Rules and Regulations of the Board. We find merit in this contention of the Employer. Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended, provides in pertinent part : ,Within 5 days after the tally of ballots has'been furnished, any- party may file with the, regional director four copies of objections 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and orders. 113 NLRB No. 102. 880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election, which shall contain a short statement of the reasons therefor. . . . Copies of such objections shall immediately be served upon each of the other parties by the party filing them, and proof of service shall be made. [Emphasis supplied.] The objections filed by the Petitioner state,'as follows : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that LOCAL 259, UAW, CIO, the petitioner herein, by its attorneys, BOUDIN, COHN AND GLICKSTEIN, hereby objects to the results and conduct of the election held in the above matter on Friday, January 28, 1954, on the ground that the employer, by its representatives and agents, interfered with its employees and prevented them from exercising their free choice in the selection of a collective bargaining representative. It is clear that the objections contain merely a general conclusive allegation of interference with the election by the Employer, devoid of any specific content or substance. Consequently, the objections fail to supply the "short statement of reasons therefor" required by the Board's Rules. The plain purpose of the provision in Rule 102.61 for a "short statement of the reasons" for objections is to discountenance the filing of objections in the form such as here involved, and to re- quire that objections, to merit investigation by the Regional Director, be reasonably specific in alleging facts which prima facie would war- rant setting aside the election. The rule thereby provides a minimum safeguard to discourage attempts to delay the effectuation of con- clusive election results by a party invoking the Board's objections procedures without having knowledge at the time of filing of any basis for invalidating the election. We regard the requirement of reasonable specificity in filing objections under the Board's Rules as a fundamental procedure essential to fairness, and not merely tech- nical.2 Accordingly, as the objections filed by the Petitioner fail to comport with the Board's Rules, we find they are not properly before the Board for consideration on the merits,3 and they are hereby dismissed. As the tally of ballots shows that the Intervenor has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. ,. See National Carbon company, 99 NLRB 774 ; 770 Mission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 361 ; National Carbon Company, ibid. Prior cases , including Gastonia Weaving Company, 103 NLRB 1200, and Wilson A Co. Inc. 88 NLRB 1. to the extent they are inconsistent with the decision herein, are hereby overruled. l OREGON FROZEN FOODS COMPANY 881 [The Board certified West Side Employees Association, Independ- ent, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees of • the Employer, in the unit found appropriate.] MEMBER MURDOCK , dissenting in part : I join my colleagues in the majority opinion insofar as it enunciates the clear requirement for future cases that objections to an election, to be validly filed under the Board' s Rule 102.61, must be stated in reasonably specific terms. However, I would not apply this strict requirement to the objections filed in the present case, in view of the lack of complete clarity in Rule 102:61 as to what is meant by a"short statement of the reasons" for objections, and the uncertainty on the question in existing Board cases.4 As a matter of fundamental equity and fairness, I believe that a party, such, as the Petitioner in the present case, should not be held, to its prejudice, as having breached a rule of procedure where, as here, the existence and content of the rule have not been made unmistakably clear. Accordingly, I would consider on the merits the alleged acts of interference with the election described in the Regional Director's report on objections. 4 In cases which preceded the promulgation of- Series 4 of the Board's Rules and Regu- lations , effective September 11, 1946, wherein the provision for "a short statement of the reasons" for objections was first incorporated, the Board permitted the filing of a gen- eral statement of objections such as involved in the instant case. See e. g., Reliance Manufacturing Co , 67 NLRB 515, 519 ( where a telegram merely "protesting" the elec- tion was allowed) Under the Rules in existence since September 11, 1946 ( including Series 6 of the Rules, as amended, now in effect), the Board continued to accept as valid the filing of generalized objections, in Wilson f Co. Inc., 88 NLRB 1, and Gastonia Weav- ing Company, 103 NLRB 1200; likewise in Lockwood-Dutcheas, Inc., 106 NLRB 1089, which is apparently the most recent case in point However, in National Carbon Com- pany, 99 NLRB 774, and Hission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 331, the contrary was held Oregon Frozen Foods Company and Ore-Ida Potato Products, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local No. 900, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 36-RC-1033. August,19, 1955 .SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On April 28, 1955, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direc- tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Re- gion, among the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that of approximately 293 eligible voters, 272 cast bal- lots, of which 75 were for, and 185 against, the Petitioner. There 1 108 NLRB 1668 113 NLRB No. 90.