Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD responsible for the operation of his department and directs the work of the other six employees in the milkroom bottling department. In view of these factors, we find that the foreman of the milkroom bottling department is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit 35 We find that the following employees 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 36 at the Employer's Albert Lea and Twin Lakes, Minnesota, plants, including all truckdrivers,37 the fieldman for the quality control pro- gram on manufactured milk and cream, the laboratory tester, and the butterfat tester, but excluding office clerical employees, retail store employees,"' the supervisor of quality control and field service, the fieldman for grade A milk service and supervision, the foreman of the milkroom bottling department, the supervisor of farm pickup, the supervisor of the bulk division," and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 18-RC-3357.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3o Pearl Packing Company, 116 NLRB 1489. ao Since the record does not reveal whether employees laid off at the end of the Twin Lakes plant's peak season have a reasonable expectancy of reemployment , such laid-off em- ployees may vote subject to challenge , and we will further investigate the facts relating to their status in the event that their votes become determinative of the results of the election. 34 As indicated above, this category includes all farm can pickup haulers, all bulk tank pickup haulers , and all retail and wholesale salesmen. 38 The parties agreed to the exclusion of the two employees who work in the Employer's retail store - 3o Although the UPWA and the Employer agreed that the supervisor of the bulk division should be included because he spends the greater portion of his time performing non- supervisory duties, the testimony indicates that he performs functions similar to those of the supervisor of farm pickup , whom the same parties agreed is a supervisor and should be excluded . Since the testimony indicates that those functions include the authority to hire and fire or effectively recommend such action, me find that the supervisor of the bulk division is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and exclude him from the unit, notwithstanding the agreement of the parties . Jones-Dabney Company, Division of Devoe & Raynolds Co, 116 NLRB 1556. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. and International Union of Elec- trical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 6-RC-1851 and 6-RC-1852. December 13, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued March 22, 1957,1 elections by secret ballot were conducted on April 12, 1957, 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and orders. 119 NLRB No. 112. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 825. among the employees of the Employer in the units found appropriate by the Board. At the conclusion of the elections, tallies of ballots, were furnished the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally in Case No. 6-RC-1851 showed that of approximately 1,190 eligible voters, 1,145 cast ballots, of which 282 were cast for the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO; 383 were cast for the International Association of Machinists and its Local Lodge 2173, AFL-CIO; 402 were cast for United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, and its Local 639; 2 and 65 were cast against participating labor organizations. There were 13 challenged ballots. The tally in Case No. 6-RC-1852 showed that of approximately 599 eligible voters, including 98 challenged votes, 588 cast ballots, of which 170 were cast for IUE ; 167 were cast for International Association of Machinists, and its Local Lodge 2174, AFL-CIO ; 101 were cast for United Elec- trical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and its Local 636; 3 52 were cast against participating labor organizations. There were 98 challenges, which were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On April 19, 1957, the IUE filed objections in Case No. 6-RC-1851. On the same day the UE timely filed objections, amended on April 22, 1957, to the election in Case No. 6-RC-1852. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director, after investigation, issued and duly served upon the parties his reports. In his report on objections in Case No. 6-RC-1851, he found that none of the objections raised substantial and material issues with respect to the election, and recommended that these objections be overruled. In his report on objections and challenged ballots in Case No. 6-RC-1852, he found that the objec- tions raised substantial and material issues and recommended that a hearing be held. He further recommended that 86 challenges be sus- tained ; that it was unnecessary to rule on 8 challenges because such determination would not affect the results of the election; and that the remaining 4 challenges be overruled. Thereafter, the IUE and UE timely filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Upon the entire record in this case, including the objections, excep- tions and briefs of the IUE and the UE, and the Regional Director's reports, the Board 4 finds : Case No. 6-RC-1851, Emporium, Pennsylvania, Plant As no exceptions were filed, we adopt the Regional Director's find- ings and recommendations that the IUE's objections 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 be, overruled. Accordingly, we shall consider only objections 1 and 4. .2 Referred to herein respectively as IUE , TAM, and UH. 3 Referred to hereinafter respectively as TAM and UE. 4 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 [ Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins] 826 DECISIONS* OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Objection 1' is based on the alleged discriminatory discharge of employee George Shadman, the subject of unfair labor practice charges filed by the IUE in Case No. 6-CA-1136. The Regional Director, after investigation, refused to issue a complaint. The IUE appealed to the General Counsel from this ruling. The Regional Director's recommendation that the objection be overruled accords with well-established Board policy.' Further, the Board will not delay this representation proceeding despite the pending appeal from the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint.6 Accordingly, we overrule this objection. In objection 4, the IUE alleged that the Employer and the IAM, the contracting union, refused to process grievances for employees unless they became JAM members. The Regional Director's investi- gation revealed and the IUE submitted no evidence of any such conduct by the Employer. As to the IAM, he found that he was precluded by the rule in the A cC P case from considering all incidents occurring prior to March 22, 1957, the date of the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections.' With respect to the remaining two incidents which may have occurred after March 22, the report states that one concerned employee George Ludwig. According to the IUE, Ludwig had filed a grievance- in April 1957 and had been advised that the IAM chief steward refused to handle it. According to the IAM and the grievance records, the grievance had been filed prior to March 22 and was being processed as early as February. Further the IAM chief steward denied refusing to process the grievance. The Regional Director found, and we agree, that the Ludwig-Krellner incident occurred prior to March 22, the A & P cutoff date, and that, in any event, the evidence did not establish that any threat of refusal or refusal to process the grievance, because of non-IAM membership was made. The second incident allegedly occurred on or about April 1, 1957, between George Shadman, an IUE adherent, and Charles. Schwab,. Jr., IAM steward. Shadman stated that while passing out leaflets about April 1, 1957, he asked Schwab whether his grievance (referring to one of November 1956) was not processed due to non-IAM mem- bership; that Schwab agreed; and later asked "When you fellows in the machine shop won't cooperate with the I. A. M., what do you expect the I. A. M. to do for you?"; that Shadman said, "How do you expect the men in the machine shop to cooperate with the I.A.M. when layoffs like the one that just took place, completely out of seniority, c Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361 . The Kinsman Transit Company, 78 NLRB 78; Columbia Pictures Corporation, et al., 85 NLRB 1085; Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast, 110 NLRB 479; and Garner Aviation Service Corporation, 114 NLRB 293. e Cuneo Press of Indiana, 114 NLRB 764. r The Great Atlantic h Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 118, as modified by F. W. Woolworth Company, 109 NLRB 1446. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 827 happens?"; and that Schwab replied, "That's not all that's going to be hurt if the men in the shop don't learn to cooperate." Schwab recalled Shadman's inquiry as to his grievance to have been made when it was pending in the third step of the grievance procedure. The Employer's answer at the third step issued December 1956. How- ever, Schwab denied telling Shadman that his grievance was not processed due to non-IAM membership. While the Regional Director could not determine conclusively whether this incident occurred subsequent to the A c0 P cutoff date, we agree with him that in any event this incident, initiated by Shadman, standing alone, was too isolated to constitute interference sufficient to warrant setting aside an election among more than 1,100 employees.8 We therefore overrule IUE's objection 4. We find, accordingly, that as the IUE's objections and exceptions have been found to be without merit and overruled, and as the tally shows that none of the participating labor organizations received a majority of the votes cast, we shall direct that a runoff election be held in Case No. 6-RC-1851. Case No. 6-RC-1852, Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, Plant In its objections, the UE alleged that the IAM, less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of the election, circulated among the employees of the Employer photostats of a forged letter allegedly written by the UE, and thereby impaired the employees' exercise of free choice in the election.' As detailed in the report, the election was scheduled to begin at 7 a. m. on April 12, 1957. About 3:15 p. m. on April 11, when representatives of all unions were distributing leaflets at the plant gate, Stuart, IAM Grand Lodge representative, received approxi- mately 50 photostatic copies of a letter which is the subject of the UE's objection. These photostats were then widely circulated by TAM representatives among the employees during the rest of the day and evening and on election day. This letter,10 purportedly sent by Elizabeth Overby, an interna- tional representative of the UE, to James Matles, the director of 8 Shoreline Enterprises of America, 114 NLRB 716, 718 ; Gastonia Comb Yarn Corpora- tion, 109 NLRB 585, 588 ; and Morganton Fall-Fashioned Company, 107 NLRB 1534, 1537-38. The fact that in October 1956, prior to the A & P cutoff date , another IUE adherent was allegedly told that the IAM intended to discriminate against nonmembers by refusing to process their grievances does not affect our ultimate conclusion. 9 The UE's original objection filed on April 19, 1957, stated that the circulation occurred on April 10 , 1957, less than 48 hours before the election . The Regional Director found, contrary to the IUE , that the UE's amendment of April 22, 1957 , stating that the circu- lation occurred on April 11, 1957; less than 24 hours before the election , did not constitute a significant and substantial change in the objections . No exceptions were filed to this finding, which we adopt. 10 A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Appendix A. 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organization of the UE, contained the following statements to which the UE particularly objected : (1) "I've never run into as dumb a bunch of people as work in this plant. They simply are backward and don't give a damn about bettering themselves with`UE and our program"; (2) "I hope you appreciate the great lengths we had to go to to get those names, some at great personal sacrifice to myself and Sylvia. Of course, since we got some of the names, several of those men have made it clear in the shop that they aren't supporting us. That's just one of the things I mean about the people here"; and (3) "as per your idea on who should be sent in here after the election, I feel you should send in an altogether new Staff Man, because we have had to go overboard in making promises to these people and could `explain' things better." After UE International Representative Elizabeth Overby, alleged author of the letter, had read it, she charged that it was a forgery. According to Overby, IAM Representative Stuart replied, "If it's a forgery, then sue." According to Stuart, however, he replied that the UE could try to prove that the'letter was not true and that the UE could get themselves more lawyers. Stuart then told her that it was in the mail on its way to Matles in New York, who received it the next day. Beginning at 6 in the morning, 1 hour before the election, the UE distributed at the plant gate a circular branding the letter as a forgery. Although the leaflet "Men Say-Vote UE," referred to in the letter, was admittedly prepared and distributed by the UE, the UE asserts that the letter itself was a fabrication and that the signature "Liz" thereon was a forgery. Overby denied that she wrote this letter or that it bore her signature. In support thereof, she averred that she never used quotation marks around the name Liz; that she never had letter heads like that on which the letter in question was written; that the letter referred to her failure to submit a report which in fact had been submitted; that the letter alluded to recent activity in an Altoona plant although she had had no connection with such plant for approximately 18 months; that the letter referred to negotiations at a "Service Shop" when she knew of no such shop in the area and had carried on no negotiations of any kind for approximately a year; and that the letter differed from her man- ner of typing, composingi and addressing of letters. The UE also asserted that it had no such stationery. Further, it submitted the written statement of Albert D. Osborn, examiner of questioned docu- ments, who was of the opinion that the signature "Liz" on the letter was a forgery." ar The complete summary of Osborn's report reads as follows : To summarize this report, I would say, first, that the signature, "Liz" is definitely a forgery. Secondly, the letter of April 8, 1957 was typed on a Royal Pica type SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 829 The IAM admits distribution of the letter but denies knowledge that it was forged. According to the IAM, the letter in question, along with several letters addressed to the IAM, was found on the morning of April 11 on the floor inside the door of the IAM office and the envelope was marked "Return to Sender" and "Insufficient Postage." Stuart, IAM representative, opened the envelope which contained the letter in question, the UE circular "Men Say-Vote UE" and another UE circular. He called the IAM legal depart- ment for permission to distribute the letter as campaign material. After providing for distribution, Stuart later that' day marked the envelope "opened by error" and had it remailed at another post office, 3 miles away to the addressee, UE Representative Matles, who received it the following morning. The Regional Director's investigation revealed that the Mill Hall Post Office apparently did not handle the letter as it normally would have done if the letter had been returned from another post office; that the postman did not recall delivering the letter in question; that he normally did not slide mail under the door of the IAM office but rather delivered it to the IAM office if open, or to the IAM's neighboring landlord, who placed the mail on the office desk; that neither of the post offices involved used the type of marking stamps used on the envelope; that there was no evidence that any postage was added after the letter was allegedly returned for insuffi- cient postage. As the Regional Director was of the opinion that the election should be set aside if the letter was a forgery, he recommended a formal hearing to determine whether the letter was a forgery and whether the IAM was responsible therefor. The IUE excepts to the Regional Director's failure to overrule the UE's objections, and to his recom- mendation of a hearing. The UE also excepts on the ground that a formal hearing is not required. We find merit only in the UE's exception. We believe, on the basis of the foregoing and upon the record as a whole, that the evidence herein is sufficient to establish, and to permit a conclusive determination to be made, that the letter in question is a forged document and we so find. With respect to the IAM's responsibility for the forgery, while there is nothing in the record to establish that the IAM had prepared the forged document, it does show that after the IAM had been warned by the UE as to the fraudulent character of the document, the IAM distributed the for- machine, the model made from 1920 to 1948 . Such a machine does not appear in any of the typing of the United Electrical typed letters and papers. Thirdly, I cannot definitely place the source of this typing. Finally, as regards the envelope, I cannot say whether it was actually hand stamped "RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT POSTAGE" in the Post Office or not, not having their stamps. The envelope is roughened in the field near the present stamp as though another stamp may have been on it. And the surface of the paper has more of a shine in this field due probably to the remains of mucilage. 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gery to the employees. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, we believe that the IAM, which distributed the forgery, should be held responsible for the concomitant effects upon the employees result- ing from such distribution even though this distribution may have occurred in good faith. It is the rule of the Board that, absent threats or other elements of intimidation, it will not undertake to censor or police union cam- paigns or consider the truth or falsity of official union utterances unless the ability of the employees to evaluate such utterances has been so impaired by the use of forged campaign material or other campaign trickery that the uncoerced desires of the employees cannot be determined in an election.12 The Board had occasion to apply this principle in the United Aircraft case, which also involved a forged document.13 In that case, the Board found that the deliberate decep- tion as to the source of the document so blinded the employees as to the significance of its contents that they could not recognize it as a forgery or evaluate it as propaganda and that this conduct lowered the standards of campaigning to a point which impaired a free choice of bargaining representative and required setting aside the election.14 We agree with the Regional Director that the decision in the United Aircraft case is applicable herein. In the instant case, as the letter attributed to the TIE and distributed by the IAM was a forgery, the employees were deceived as to the source of the document and their ability to evaluate the document and its contents was so impaired as to interfere with the employees' free choice of a bargaining repre- sentative. While the IAM, in good faith, may not have known that the letter it circulated was a forgery, it is nonetheless clear that the employees' loss of ability to evaluate was a direct consequence of the IAM's action and that the impact on the employees was, in no way, lessened by the IAM's good or bad faith or its knowledge or lack of knowledge as to the fraudulent character of the document it dis- tributed. Moreover, the IAM was put on notice by the UE that the document was in fact a forgery. Finally, although the UE an hour before the election attempted to minimize the effect of the fraudulent letter by circulars attacking the letter as a forgery, we further agree with the Regional Director that the kind of misrepresentation involved and the shortage of time remaining after the distribution of the letter precluded a fair opportunity to counteract the effect of the forgery before the election. In these circumstances, we shall therefore set the first election aside and direct that a new one be conducted in Case No. 6-RC-1852. 12 Merck & Company, Inc., 104 NLRB 891; Allis- Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 117 NLRB 744; The Calidyne Company, 117 NLRB 1026. 13 United Aircraft Corporation, 103 NLRB 102; The Calidyne Company, supra. 14 Also see Timken-Detroit Axle Company, 98 NLRB 790. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC -PRODUCTS, INC.. 831 The Challenges The UE excepts to the Regional Director's finding that 86 em- ployees listed on Appendix B attached hereto, laid off because of lack of work between November 14, 1956, and the election on April 12, 1957, had no reasonable expectancy of recall in the near future, and to his recommendation that challenges to their ballots be sustained. Further, the UE requests a hearing on this matter in order adequately to develop evidence of the Employer's business conditions and expec- tations. The IUE and the IAM agree with the UE that these laid-off employees should be eligible to vote because they retain their seniority rights for a period of 18 months from the day of layoff. The Em- ployer contends that they are ineligible. The Employer submitted to the Regional Director data showing that there had been a steady decline of total employment at the plant in the last 5 years, from 2,079 on March 1, 1952, to 603 on May" 1, 1957. While the figures submitted contained employees not in the bargain- ing unit, the Employer asserted that-on March 1, 1952, there were 1,900 in the unit; and by May 1, 1957, there were only 485 in the unit. In September 1956, there were approximately 721 employees in the unit but by the time of the election, there were only 501'in the unit, excluding those laid off. 'Only two of the laid-off employees in the unit have been recalled since November 1956.15 The Employer assert- ed that, at the time of the election, it was clear that on the basis of the Employer's forecast of future sales, and because of improved manu- facturing techniques, it was reasonably certain that the challenged laid-off employees would not be recalled in the near future and prob- ably would never be recalled. In this connection, the Employer pointed out that additional employees have been laid off since the election. The labor organizations involved have submitted no evidence to counteract the Employer's evidence concerning the unlikelihood of recall of these employees in the near future. Rather, they rely exclu- sively on the contractual provision in the IAM contract that such laid-off employees maintain their seniority for 18 months from the time of layoff. We agree with the Regional Director that, according to Board precedent, the retention of seniority status, is not deter- minative of eligibility to vote 16 but rather the test is whether there exists a reasonable expectancy of employment in the near future. As the record as a whole establishes adequately that there has been a steady decrease in employment over the last 5 years with little, if any, recall of laid-off employees, and that there is no reasonable expect- 15 One employee returned from military leave, while the other was recalled to fill an opening resulting from a resignation. 16 N. A. Woodworth Company, 115 NLRB 1263, 1267. 832 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ancy that the laid-off employees herein involved will be recalled in the near future, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, -that `the 86 individuals listed on Appendix A are,ineligible to vote, and adopt his recommendation that the challenges to their ballots be therefore sustained." In these circumstances, we deny the UE's request for a hearing on this matter. The Employer and the UE are in agreement that M. L. Fetter, E. I. Martin, and K. E. Seyler were absent on maternity leave and that H. M. Confer's absence was excused because of illness at the time of the election. Apart from their general position that all of the challenged employees are eligible because of their contractual senior- ity rights, the IUE and the IAM have taken no specific position with respect to the challenges discussed herein on an individual basis. The UE contends that all the employees on maternity leave or absent because of illness or excused absence are eligible to vote, while the Employer apparently considers these employees to be ineligible to vote. The Employer, according to the Regional Director, stated that an employee placed on excused absence because of illness or maternity leave was not placed on the recall list until such employee indicated to the Employer that he or she was available for work, that upon such notification, the employee's name was added to the recall list in order of plantwide seniority, and that, as of the time of the election, none of the employees in question had applied for recall. The Board has held that employees who are on sick or maternity leave, who have retained their seniority rights and who have not quit or been discharged are eligible to vote."' Because it is undisputed that Fetter, Martin, and Seyler are on maternity leave and that Confer's absence was excused because of illness, because they had retained their seniority rights as of the time of the election, and because there is no evidence that they quit or were discharged, we agree with the Regional Director that they were eligible to vote and we adopt his recommenda- tion overruling the challenges to their ballots. However, because of insufficient evidence with respect to the disputed status of E. G. Barn- hart, E. M. Duffield, A. A. Erler, J. E. Gettig, P. L. Holter, P. Y. Shaffer, S. M. Watkins, and D. Shady, we are unable to pass upon the challenges and their eligibility.19 Accordingly, we shall permit Fetter, Martin, Seyler, and Confer to vote in the second election in Case No. 6-RC-1852, and we shall permit Barnhart, Duffield, Erler, Gettig, Holter, Shaffer, Watkins, and Shady to vote therein under challenge. 17 Shaw-Randall Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 444, 445-6. Is Foley Manufacturing Company, 115 NLRB 1205. 16 The Regional Director found it unnecessary to rule upon these challenges because they would not affect the results of the election. However, if the Board directed a hearing, he believed that these challenges should also be included in such hearing. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS , INC. 833: [The Board remanded Case No. 6-RC-1851 to the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, who shall .proceed in accordance with Sections. 102.61 and 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and set aside the election in Case No . 6-RC-1852 held herein on April 12, 1957.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]; APPENDIX A UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 264 Main St. Mill Hall, Pa. APRIL 8,1957:. ORGANIZATIONAL DEPARTMENT To : JAMES MATLES, Director of Organization. PROGRESS OF UE CAMPAIGN, MILL HALL, PENNA. DEAR JIM : Sorry I wasn't able to get a Report into you last wk, but-. we've been rushed very much lately. As you requested, I check in xx: on that plant down in Altoona , and I think we might be able to move on it after we get out of MillHall and Emporium . Ethel has a few leads on it and she will be able to help us break ice there. I finished up negotiations at our Service Shop where Riskin left off.. We got 4 to 80 in a Package deal and I think the people are satisfied'. for a while . I'll not go into that now because I'm sure your main in- terest is how we are doing here in Mill Hall. (I 'll send in the facts: for a story in the UE News , plus some pictures.) We have made some progress in the past 10 days and I think we got. a chance of getting into a runoff. However I am not making any pre- dictions for you because I've never run into as dumb a bunch of people as work in this plant . They simply are backward and don't give a. damn about bettering themselves with UE and our program. I am attaching a copy of that leaflet your suggested we get out on. the MEN SUPPORTING UE. I hope you appreciate the great: lengths we had to go to to get those names, some at great personal sacrifice to myself and Sylvia. Of course, since we got some of the- names, several of those men have made it clear in the shop that they aren't supporting us. That's just one of the things I.mean about the, people here. 476321-58-vol. 119-54 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD But we will keep plugging and intend to hold onto Mill Hall. Both Sylvia and Bob Kirkwood are working hardxxx and doing everything they can. Fraternally, AND LOTS OF LUCK ON YOUR APPEAL ! "Liz" ELIZABETH OvERBY, Int'l. Representative. PS: As per your idea on who should be sent in here after the election, I feel you should send in an altogether new Staff Man, because we have had to go overboard in making promises to these people, and could "explain" things better. APPENDIX B Ballots Challenged by Company 1. M. J. Allen 2. M. I. Baier 3. M. V. Barzona 4. B. J. Basinger 5. L. C. Beck 6. G. L. Bennett 7. H. C. Bonadio 8. G. L. Bower 9. F. E. Bowes 10. D. M. Bowmaster 11. J. B. Butler 12. V. M. Cashner 13. J. S. Clukey 14. B. E . Coakley 15. E. I. Confer 16. M. A. Conklin 17. T. L. Considine 18. A. A. Cowher 19. E. J. Cox 20. E. R. Day 21. V. M. Delaney 22. It. M. DeWitt 23. S. H. Dietz 24. F. P. Duck 25. M. A. Dullen 26. J. M. English 27. L. A. Fisher 28. C. E. Flanigan 29. M. C. Folk 30. M. M. Foringer 31. F. M. Frazier 32. I. A. Gephart 33. G. E. Grieb 34. E. L. Grieco 35. H. It. Grieco 36. B. C. Guerriero 37. M. G. Gummo 38. J. M. Haines 39. I. E. Haugh 40. S. L. Heitman 41. H. B. Heverly 42. N. E. Hilliard 43. B. J. Hinds 44. S. E. Irvin 45. M. A. Johnson 46. L. B. Knarr 47. D. M. Koch 48. It. S. Lapp 49. D. E. Laubscher 50. M. E. Laubscher 51. M. M. Leupold 52. T. R. Livingston 53. P. H. Lomax 54. J. V. McCloskey 55. E. M. McKivison 56. J. C. Magent 57. A. B. Manno 58. It. A. Mayes 59. E. W. Miller 60. H. S. Miller STAR BAKING COMPANY 61. D. M. Morrison 62.. S. J. Mowery 63. K. I. Peasley 64. A. M. Peck 65. B. P. Peter 66. L. M. Pizzuto 67. H. E. Powers 68. M. M. Probst 69. E. F. Rossman 70. A. E. Royer 71. N. C. Ruggiers 72. R. H. Russell 73. M. H. Ryan 74. D. M. Schaffer 75. L. V. Shady 76. M. G. Shivery 77. R. E. Simcox 78. R. A. Smith 79. N. J. Spotts 80. S. E. Stover 81. I. B. Thomas 82. T. P. Tressler 83. G. M. Walters 84. H. L. Welshans 85. G. E. Willits 86. L. B. Young 835 Star Baking Company and International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 146,1 Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-1289. December 13, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on June 13, 1957,2 an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 11, 1957, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 34 eligible voters, 14 cast votes for, and 14 cast votes against, the Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots. On July 15, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct of the election. On August 28, 1957, the Regional Director issued his report on objections in which he recommended that the election be set aside. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Petitioner objected to the election on the ground that, in mail- ing ballots to 14 employees, the Regional Director allowed insufficient time for returning such ballots. The Regional Director found no merit in this objection and recom- mended that it be overruled. As no exception has been taken thereto, we shall -adopt this recommendation and overrule the Petitioner's objection to the election. 1 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi- cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this union is hereby amended. 2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 119 NLRB No. 111.