Imperial Optical Manufacturing Co.

IMPERIAL OPTICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 5 Imperial Optical Manufacturing Company and International Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, United Optical Work- ers Union, Local 408, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC- 100. October 17,1957 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed between the Employer and the Petitioner on May 10, 1957, and approved by the Regional Director on May 21, 1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 31, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region. The tally of ballots furnished the parties showed that there were ap- proximately 85 eligible voters; that 80 votes were cast, of which 10 were for, and 69 against, the Petitioner; and that 1 ballot was chal- lenged. The single challenged ballot is not sufficient to affect the results of the election. On June 4, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the elec- tion, alleging that the Employer engaged in intimidatory conduct, consisting of (1) a discriminatory discharge; (2) "various illegal statements, threats, and promises to the employees" and the grant of certain wage increases; and (3) promises of wage increases, extra overtime work, and hospitalization benefits if the employees voted against the Petitioner, and release (with pay) of various employees an hour early on the day before the election. The first objection was withdrawn by the Petitioner. The second objection was found to be directed to conduct occurring, with Petitioner's knowledge, prior to the execution by the parties of the stipulation for certification upon consent election. The Regional Director properly rejected this ob- jection upon the authority of F. W. Woolworth.' In regard to the third objection, the Petitioner was unable to produce witnesses to support its position. However, a Board agent made efforts through the Petitioner's business agent to interview the employees in their homes, but he was advised by the business agent that the employees would not see or talk to him. The Regional Director thereupon over- ruled the third objection on grounds of the Petitioner's failure to support its allegation. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an exception to the Regional Director's report. The Board has considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional Director's report, and the Petitioner's exception, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's recommendation that the objections be over- ruled and the results of the election certified. 109 NLRB 1446. 119 NLRB No. 5. '6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In its exception, the Petitioner states that the Regional Director failed to verify Petitioner 's third objection from the books of the Employer. In the Petitioner's view the Regional Director should have determined whether any employee received unearned compensa- tion immediately before election . The Regional Director is not re- quired to investigate unsubstantiated charges . The complaining party must furnish more than mere allegations . This the Petitioner has failed to do .2 Moreover, Petitioner's exception is now no more cor- roborated with fact than its original objections to the Regional Director. Therefore, in accordance with settled Board policy, we overrule the exception in its entirety.' Since Petitioner did not secure a majority of the valid votes cast in the election and since its exception is overruled , we will certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for the International Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,. United Optical Workers Union, Local 408, AFL-CIO, and that this labor organization is therefore not the exclusive representative of the. employees of the Employer.] CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Certification of Results of Election. The Rankle Company of Texas, 117'NLRB 462; Hincher Hannfactw•ing Company, 106 NLRB 1314, 1316. 3 N. B. Liebman f Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 88, 90. Alamo Express, Inc., and Alamo Cartage Company and General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 968, AFL-CIO. Case No. 39-CA-500. October 18,195 7 DECISION AND ORDER On March 12, 1957, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect thereto.' 1 There being no exceptions thereto, and without passing on the merits , we adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendations that the allegations of the complaint regarding the -discharges of Perfecto Tey, C. L. Vinson, Rubin Garza, and Teroy Riggans be dismissed- 119 NLRB No. 8.