Montgomery Ward & Co.

310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Montgomery Ward & Co. and Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, Local Union 345, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC- 1815. June 24, 1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION On March 28, 1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Third Region among employees in the agreed appropriate. unit. Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that 16 ballots were cast against, and 13 for, the Petitioner. On April 2, 1957, the Petitioner filed objections to the election, stating that it was objecting to the election "by reason of the company's acts and conduct committed on company property during working hours immediately prior to the election involving company's solicita- tions, offer of benefits, and campaigning in direct violation of the Act so as to influence the election to a degree that a fair and impartial election was thereby made impossible." Thereafter the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the foregoing objections did not comply with the requirement in Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations that objections to an election shall "contain a short statement of the reasons therefor." The Regional Director found that this Rule, as construed by the Board in Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc., 113 NLRB 879, required a more specific statement than that furnished by the Petitioner. He accordingly recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Board certify the result of the election. Exceptions to the report on objections were timely filed by the Petitioner. Petitioner contends that (1) its statement of objections was sufficiently specific to satisfy the Board's Rule, and (2), in any event, the circumstances surrounding the filing of the objections were such as to warrant distinguishing this case from the Don Allen case. On May 24, 1957, the Employer filed with the Board it motion to strike the Petitioner's objections to the election because of their lack of specificity. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins]. Even if we assume, without deciding, that the Petitioner's objec- tions, considered alone, are not sufficiently specific, we find that it is pertinent to the application of the Board's Rule, cited above, to con- sider the circumstances under which the objections were filed. 118 NLRB No. 35. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. 311 It appears from the Petitioner's exceptions, as corroborated and amplified by advice received by the Board from the Regional Director, that the objections were filed under the following circumstances: On March 29, the day after the election, the Regional Director re- ceived a letter from the Petitioner stating that it was objecting to the election on the basis of certain statements attached to the letter, and requesting that the election be set aside. The statements attached to this letter set forth certain details of preelection conduct by the Em- ployer, which the Petitioner alleges in its exceptions related to "solicitation and campaigning" by the Employer within 24 hours before the election. The Regional Director advised the Petitioner that compliance with the Board's Rules required that a copy of the letter and the attached statements be served upon the Employer. However, the Regional Director suggested that for administrative reasons it would be preferable to refile the objections in the form of a single document setting forth the basis of the objections, without attaching any evidentiary material. Pursuant to this advice, the Petitioner on April 2 filed new objections in the form described at the outset of this Decision, and a copy thereof was served upon the Employer. Under these circumstances, we believe that the Don Allen case and other cases' in which objections were overruled because not sufficiently specific are not controlling here. As stated in the Don Allen case, the reason for the requirement of specificity is "to discourage attempts to delay the effectuation of conclusive 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." The foregoing reason for the requirement of specificity does not apply here. Any -lack of specificity in the Petitioner's objections was not due to the Petitioner's inability to furnish more details but rather to its desire to conform with the Regional Director's suggestion that it omit details already furnished. Accordingly, we do not adopt the Regional Director's recommenda- tion that the objections be overruled and we shall remand the case to the Regional Director for investigation of the issues raised by such obj ections.2 [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Third Re- gion shall investigate the issues raised by the objections filed herein and serve upon the parties a Supplemental Report of Objections.] 1 hfission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 361: National Carbon Company, 99 NLRB 774; Progressive Brass Fonndry, 114 NLRB 903. 1 The Employer's motion to strike the objections is consequently also denied.