Garner Aviation Service Corp.

GARNER AVIATION SERVICE CORPORATION 293 5. The foregoing unfair, labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (a) ^(3) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Garner Aviation Service Corporation and Lynchburg Air Trans- port and Sales Corporation d/b/a Garner Aviation Service Corporation and International- Association of Machinists; AFL, Petitioner. Case, No. 10-RC-W99. October 7,=1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION . AND, CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION, Pursuant to a Decision and, Direction of Election issued herein on. January 13, 1955,1 and to an order correcting the said decision, an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 10, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 337 eligible voters, 317 cast valid ballots, of which 97 were for the Petitioner and 220 were against it; 1 ballot was void and 8 were challenged. Thereafter, Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the matter and, on July 13, 1955, issued and duly served on the parties his report on objections in which he found that the objections did not raise material and substantial issues and recommended that they be dismissed. On July 21, 1955, Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board has considered the Petitioner 's objections, the Regional Director's report, the Petitioner's exceptions, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recom- mendations of the Regional Director with the modifications, noted below. Petitioner's objections are substantially as follows: 1. The Employer violated the settlement agreement in Case No. 10-CA-1530, entered into on February 11, 1953 , by engaging in the conduct hereinafter set forth. 2. The Employer approved the formation and activities of the job security committee and a letter sent by the committee to its employees. This letter, which was mailed in the Employer's envelopes, contained allegedly coercive language. 1111 NLILB 191. 1,11 NLRB No. 57. 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The Employer wrongfully supplied the job security committee with a list of the, names and addresses of its employees. 4. The Employer allowed the committee "free run of its plants" but denied Petitioner the same privilege. 5. The Employer interfered with the election by announcing the inauguration of bonus and employee suggestion awards payments while this representation proceeding was pending. 6. Supervisors transported their crews to the polling places and re- mained there with them in disregard of the Board representative's instructions-to' leave. . I I ^ . 7. The employer-dominated committee threatened workers with loss of employment if they voted for the Petitioner. 8. The foregoing allegations are supported by actions and state- ments of the Employer following the close of the balloting. With regard to the first allegation, we find, as did theRegional Di- rector. that violation of the settlement agreement, apart from the con- duct alleged to interfere with 'the election, does not constitute a valid objection to the instant election since it merely raises issues relating to a prior proceeding. The second and seventh objections, alleging that the job security committee was employer-dominated and that the Employer was re- sponsible for its activities, amount, in substance, to allegations of an 8 (a) (2) violation and are of a type which the Board will not de- termine in representation proceedings.' Moreover, the Petitioner has filed 8 (a) (2) charges in Case No. 10-CA-2250, alleging unlawful domination of the committee, which the Regional Director has found were insufficient to warrant the issuance of a complaint. In addition, the Regional Director's investigation failed to uncover sufficient evi- dence to hold the Employer responsible for the committee's statements in its letter, even assuming, without deciding, that these statements were coercive. In these circumstances, we agree with the Regional Director that these objections lack merit. Assuming arguendo, that the incidents set forth in objections Nos. 3 and 5 are grounds for invalidating the election, they occurred prior to the date of issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election. Ac- cordingly, we find that no material or substantial issues are raised by these objections for the Board will only consider conduct which occurs after such date s Turning to the fourth objection, the Regional Director found, among other things, that the incidents relied on to show disparate treatment occurred before the issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election and that, therefore, they may not serve as a ground for invalidating the election. In its exceptions, the Petitioner argues only that the Board is without power to adopt this cutoff date. For s Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast and Its Member Companies, 110 NLRB 479. F. W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446. BROTHERHOOD • OF PAINTERS, ETC. 295 the reasons set forth in the Woolworth case, supra, we find no merit in this contention and overrule the objection. As to the sixth allegation, we agree with the Regional Director's determination that it affords no basis for setting aside the election. Admittedly, a supervisor transported three employees to the polls and entered the election area with them. However, investigation re- veals that he left when asked to do so and that he did no electioneer- ing. Mere brief presence at or near the polls without proof of im- proper conduct is insufficient to raise an issue with respect to the con- duct of the election.4 Furthermore, contrary to the Petitioner's con- tention, transportation of employees to the voting area is not improper conduct.' Accordingly, we overrule this objection. Finally, with respect to the eighth objection, we find, as did the Re- gional Director, that the alleged taking of pictures of the counting ,of the ballots and the alleged postelection statements of Personnel Di- rector Diamond and General Manager Wolfinbarger, assuming the truth of these allegations, do not amount to interference with the elec- tion and do not warrant setting it aside. In view of the foregoing, we find that the objections do not raise substantial or material issues with respect to conduct affecting the re- sults of the election. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the objections. As the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the votes cast in the election, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for International Association of Machinists, AFL, and that this labor organization is not the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer in the unit, heretofore found ap- propriate.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election. Fruehauf Trailer company, 106 NLRB 182, 184. Reidbord B2 os. Co., 99 NLRB 127, 130. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of Amer- ica, Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Tile Layers, Local No. 419, AFL and William F. Coopersmith. Case No. 30-CB-25. October 10,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On June 19, 1953, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled case,' finding that the Re- spondent Union had violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of 1105 NLRB 669. 114 NLRB No. 58.