Tung-Sol Electric, Inc.

104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ties on behalf of, American Newspaper Guild, CIO, or any other labor organ- ization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act; state to our em- ployees that we will discharge any employee because of his affiliation with, or activities on behalf of, American Newspaper Guild, CIO, or any other labor organization, or that any employee has been discharged because of any such affiliation or activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to join or assist American Newspaper Guild, CIO; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain, from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain members of American News- paper Guild, CIO, or any other labor organization. HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY OF BELLFLOWER, Employer. Dated---------------- By---------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Tung-Sol Electric, Inc. and Triangle Radio Tubes, Inc. and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers - of America, (UE), Local 433 and Local 433, 'Independent, Petitioners "and International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, CIO and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL. Cases Nos. 2-RC-6817 and 2-RC-6907. September 16, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on September 29, 1954,1 an election and a runoff election were conducted in this proceeding. In the runoff election 1,241 votes were cast for Local 433, Independent, herein called Independent ; 893 votes were cast for International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, CIO, herein called the IUE-CIO; and 29 ballots were chal- lenged. On November 15, 1954, the IUE-CIO filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the runoff election. On April 1, 1955, following an investigation, the Regional Director issued his report on objections wherein he found that the IUE-CIO's objections did not raise substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, or to conduct affecting the results of the election. He therefore recommended that the objections be dismissed and that the Independent be certified. 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 114 NLRB No. 22. TUNG-SOL ELECTRIC, INC. 105 Pursuant to an extension granted by the Board, the time for filing exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections expired on May 2, 1955. On May 3, 1955, the Board received from: the IUE-CIO exceptions to such report and a supporting brief, postmarked May 2, 1955, 9 p. M., New York, New York. Noting that the IUE-CIO's exceptions were not timely within the meaning of its Rules and Regu- lations, the Board, on May 3, 1955, issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives,' in which it adopted the Re- gional Director's findings and recommendations, and certified the In- dependent as the bargaining representative of the Employer's em- ployees. On May 6, 1955, the IUE-CIO filed a motion, together with a sup- porting affidavit, wherein it requested the Board to reconsider and set aside the certification of the Independent and to deem the IUE-CIO's exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections and its sup- porting brief to be filed mint pro tune as of May 2, 1955. On May 10, 1954, an attorney for the Independent filed an affidavit with respect to this matter. It is contended by the IUE-CIO that its exceptions were not timely filed because a misunderstanding developed between the IUE-CIO attorney and the Board's Associate Executive Secretary. As a result the attorney erroneously believed that the time for filing exceptions had been extended through May 2, 1955, when in fact it had only been extended to May 2. It is also contended by the IUE-CIO that its intention to file exceptions was known by the Board long before May 2, so that the arrival of the exceptions on May 3, although untimely, was not unexpected. Finally, the IUE-CIO argues that the Board, through an over-technical application of its Rules and Regulations, should not preclude itself from examining the important question raised by the exceptions when the delay in filing was caused by the pressure of other work and a misunderstanding as to the exact date f or filing. Recently the Board has held that under its Rules and Regulations when a time for filing has been set, all matters must be received before the close of business of the last day of the time limit.3 Moreover, in another recent case, the Board held that to achieve certainty in pro- cedural matters, it is essential that parties be held to a strict adherence to the Board's Rules and Regulations.' We believe that this policy is sound. The infrequent hardships occasioned by a strict adherence to the Board's Rules and Regulations are more than counterbalanced by the benefits that result when a certainty in procedural matters is established. 2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. a:Bmsthfeld Packing Company, Incorporated, 112 NLRB 940. 4 General Time Corporation, 112 NLRB 86 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the instant case, there is no question as to the untimeliness of the exceptions. The only question presented is whether the Board's policy as set forth above should be set aside so that the IUE-CIO exceptions may be received. We do not believe that the reasons advanced by the IUE-CIO are sufficiently persuasive to cause us to deviate from our established policy. This conclusion is particularly compelling in view of the fact that by a telegram on April 22, 1955, the Board ad- vised the IUE-CIO that the date for filing exceptions had been ex- tended to and not beyond May 2, 1955. Further, the IUE-CIO at- torney admits that this telegram was received in his office on the date it was sent. Under these circumstances, we shall deny the IUE-CIO's request that its exceptions be deemed to have been filed on May 2, 1955. [The Board denied the motion.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order Denying Motion. National Truck Rental Company, Inc. and Local 639, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, and District Lodge No. 67, Inter- national Association of Machinists, AFL, (Local 1486). Case No. 5-C.4-9.32. September 19,1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge duly filed on January 17, 1955, by Local 639, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and District Lodge No. 67, International Associa- tion of Machinists, AFL, (Local 1486), jointly, herein collectively called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, issued a complaint dated April 15, 1955, against National Truck Rental Company, herein called the Respondent, alleg- ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union on or about April 15, 1955. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about November 17, 1954, and at all times there after, down to and including the issuance of the complaint, the Re- spondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the ex- elusive representative of all employees in an appropriate unit, 114 NLRB No. 26.