Audubon Cabinet Co., Inc.

AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 349 tive bargaining within the meaning of, Section 9 (b) of the Act and shall direct an election 15 among such employees : All employees who handle incoming and outgoing papers from pressroom through and including platform work, all addressograph work in, connection with mailing room operation, and including all work now being performed by the mailing department, but excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part : I concur in the -result reached by my colleagues. However, for the reasons stated in my dissent in West Virg2'.iia Pulp and Paper Com- pany, 118 NLRB 1595, I would not permit the Intervenors, who are not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act, to partici- pate in this proceeding for any purpose. 1 The Intervenors took the position that because of the Petitioner's conduct in connec- tion with the alleged schism, it is impossible to hold a free election . However, the case of Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 210 F. 2d 852 (C. A. 7, 1954), relied on by the Intervenors , is clearly distinguishable on the facts. Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc. and Period Tables, Inc. and United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 235, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 35-RC-1164 and 35-RC-118. No- vember 5, 1957 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the Board issued on March 28, 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 16, 1957, among the employees in the stipulated unit, under the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the Ninth Region. Following the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which, showed that of approximately 137 eligible voters, 131 cast ballots, of which 69 were for and 49 against the Petitioner, 12 were challenged, and 1 was void;. Thereafter, the Employers filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, alleging in substance that union representatives (1) threatened, intimidated, and coerced employees in the course of house-to-house visits; (2) made -false statements to employees regarding hours, wages, and working conditions at the Employers' plants and at other plants where the Petitioner may or 1 117 NLRB 861, wherein the Board set aside an election conducted herein on August 24, 1955 , and directed the holding of a new election. 119 NLRB No. 41. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD may not have been the bargaining agent; and (3) were in close proximity to the plant during the election and addressed and in- fluenced employees as they were about to enter the property for the purpose of voting. On July 22, the Regional Office requested the Employers to submit evidence in support of their objections. By letter dated July 27, the Employers advised the Regional Office that they could not obtain written statements in support of their objec- tions from employees but submitted the names of eight employees who they asserted would be willing to give supporting evidence to a field examiner of the Board. On August 2, the Acting Regional Director issued his report on objections to election, in which he recom- mended that the objections be overruled because the objections lacked specificity and, in any event, because the Employers failed to submit evidence in support of the objections 2 The Employers filed timely exceptions to this report. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board 9 makes the following findings of fact : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4: The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees of the Employers constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employers at their Henderson, Kentucky, operation, excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. 5. We find no merit in the Employers' exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's recommendation herein. Objections, to merit investigation by a Regional Director, must be reasonably specific in alleging facts which prima facie would war- rant setting aside an election. This rule of the Board is designed to discourage attempts to delay the effectuation of conclusive elec- tion results by a party invoking the Board's objections procedures without having knowledge at the time of filing of any basis for invali- dating the election.' In our opinion, the mere allegation that the 2 The Acting Regional Director also found that the Employers had raised a "belated ob- jection" in their letter of July 27. However, the matter thus referred to is but a restate- ment of objection (3), above. 8 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins]. 4 Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc., 113 NLRB 879. AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 351 Petitioner threatened, intimidated, and coerced employees constitutes l general conclusion, devoid of any specific content or substance, .which fails to satisfy the Board's requirement of reasonable specific- ity in the filing of objections .5 Nor do we find that the other objec- tions, namely, the alleged false statements and close proximity of the Union's representatives to the plant during the election, satisfy the Board's rule in this respect. The false statements alleged in objection (2) have not been shown to be such as exceed the limits of legitimate +campaign propaganda so as to impair the free choice of the employees in the election.' Similarly, with respect to objection ( 3) relating to the close proximity of union representatives to the plant where they addressed and influenced employees,' we find that such elec- tioneering does not, in and of itself , constitute an unlawful inter- ference with the election s Moreover, if, contrary to our findings above, the requirement of -reasonable specificity in the filing of objections had been met herein, we would nonetheless be compelled to overrule the objections. For the Board has consistently held that a party filing objections to an election is obligated to furnish evidence in support of such objec- tions and that, unless such evidence is produced , the Regional Director is not required to pursue the investigation further.9 And no such supporting evidence has been produced by the Employers.10 For the above reasons, we hereby overrule the Employers' objec- tions, as recommended by the Acting Regional Director . As United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 235 have secured a majority of the valid votes cast , we shall certify them as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified United Furniture Workers of America, AFL- (CIO, and its Local 235, as the designated collective-bargaining rep- :resentative of employees of the Employer in the unit herein found appropriate.] 5 Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc., supra ; Mission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 361. 6 See Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 117 NLRB 744; The Calidyne Company, 117 NLRB 1026; lVheelerweld Division, C. H. Wheeler Manufacturing Company, 118 NLRB 698. 7 The Employers make no allegation as to the nature and content of the conversations between the union representatives and the employees. 8 Higgins, Inc., 106 NLRB 845; The Rackle Company of Texas, 117 NLRB 462; Burson .Plant of The Kendall Company, 115 NLRB 1401. 9 Wood & Smith Shoe Co., 117 NLRB 1760. '0 Cf. J. Spevak & Co., Inc., 110 NLRB 954. In their exceptions, the Employers state that "in the past," the only specific case mentioned occurring "a number. of years ago," the Regional Office was content to receive merely the names of witnesses, which was all that -they provided. We do not view these assertions as providing sufficient basis for relaxing the Board's requirements in this connection. See Progressive Brass Foundry Co., Inc., :114 NLRB 963.