Mine & Mill Supply Co.

74 DECISIONS O1' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tioli' of the Petitioner's compliance status, and the Employer further contends that the Board's administrative determination, is invalid because no hearing was held in connection therewith and because it rejects sworn testimony given at the hearing in the instant case. We find no merit in any of these contentions as, in effect, they con- stitute a further attempt to litigate the Petitioner's compliance status in this proceeding similar to that we have already rejected.3 Accord- ingly, the Employer's objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are overruled. 2. In its fourth objection the Employer contends that the date of the election and all election arrangements were established in con- sultation with the Petitioner but without consulting the Employer or its representatives or in any way considering the Employer's wishes. The Regional' Director found that a Board agent spoke to the Em- ployer's North Augusta terminal supervisor who agreed to a date for the ' election ' and whose suggestions for other arrangements were so- licited and substantially, adopted. All details were confirmed in, letters to the parties prior to the election, and the Employer did not object to them at any time prior to, the, election. He further found, no evidence or allegation to the effect that a free election was in fact prevented. In its exceptions, the Employer does not controvert any of the Regional Director's findings but alleges only that the Board agent should have consulted, the. Employer's counsel or vice president, who appeared at, the hearing, rather than to assume that the terminal, supervisor was authorized to speak for the Employer in these matters. We find no merit in the exceptions, for as the Regional Director found there is no evidence,or allegation that it free expression of choice by the voters was prevented in the election as conducted. Morever, .the Regional Director has broad discretion in snaking arrarigement^,with respect to conduct of elections,, and there is no evidence that this discretion has been "abused.' Accordingly, we overrule the Employer's' foixrth objection. [The Board certified General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local,,Union Np., 5O9 as the. designated collective-bargaining repre-, sentative, of the. Employer's drivers and, warehousemen in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.] 9119 NLRB 939 at footnote 3. M4lham Products Co., Ino., 114 NLRB 1544. Mine & Mill Supply Company and International Chemical Workers Union, Loc.l 35, 'AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-EC-272 (formerly 10-RC-3413): March 10, 1958 ORDER RESCINDING CERTIFICATE On January 2, 1958, the Employer filed with the Board a motion for order rescinding certificate issued in the above-entitled case by 120 NLRB No. 9. MINE & MILL SUPPLY COMPANY 75 the Board on June 1, 1956, to International Chemical Workers Union, Local 35, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Local 35, as bargaining repre- sentative of its employees at its Lakeland, Florida, plant. The Em- ployer certified that a copy of this motion was served upon Local 35. The motion alleges that, after the issuance of the certificate, the Employer and Local 35 engaged in collective bargaining; that, at the time of Board certification, Local 35 was in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act, but permitted its compliance with these requirements to lapse on January 1, 1957, and since that time has not renewed its compliance. On June 12, 1957, the Employer filed a representation petition which was dismissed by the Board because of Local 35's noncompliance.' The Employer asserts in support of its motion that Local 35's deliberate failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Act has barred the processing of its representation petition and prevented' the conduct of an election to test Local 35's majority and the efficacy of Local 35's certificate, to the Employer's detriment. The Employer contends, further, that Local 35 by its conduct has abused the Board's processes and thwarted the effectuation of the purposes of the Act; and the appropriate remedy is the rescission of Local 35's'certificate. In view of the foregoing, the Board, on February 3, 1958, issued! R notice to show cause, which was served on the parties ,to the pro- ceeding, including Local 35, requiring the parties to show cause, in writing on or before February 13, 1958, why the Board should not grant the Employer's motion. On February 13, 1958, Local 35, through its counsel, filed a response- to said notice, asserting that : Service of the Employer's motion was defective-because counsel for Local 35 did not receive a copy thereof; consequently, all,statements in the Employer's motion are denied as Local 35 "is without knowledge as to such statements," and demands proof of the matter alleged by the Employer; the real purpose of the motion is to remove-Local 35 as bargaining representative; the Employer is not before the Board with clean hands because it has refused to bargain with Local 35 since November 13, 1957; and there are procedures available'to the 'Em- ployer to' terminate the certificate other than by revocation through administrative processes. We find no merit in any of these contentions. ' 'The Employer has certified to the Board, and Local 35 does not deny, that Local 35 was served with a copy of the Employer's motion. We; deem this sufficient service. It is not clear whether Local 35's counsel is contending that (1) he has no knowledge of the contents of the Employer's motion because he has not been served with, a copy or (2) he has read the motion but has no information concerning the matters alleged therein. If the former, there is no showing that the 2118 NLRB 1586. 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD copy of the motion served on Local 35 was not available to its counsel. If the latter, the factual allegations in the motion relate solely to Board proceedings involving Local 35 or matters within its peculiar knowledge. We will not, in any event, require proof of the Employer's allegations as the only matters alleged therein which we deem ma- terial herein are those pertaining to the various proceedings before the Board recited above and the non-compliance of Local 35, of which we take official notice. The allegation in Local 35's response concerning the Employer's motivation or its unfair labor practices are not relevant here. As to the appropriateness of the procedure utilized by the Employer, it has selected a method of seeking termination of Local 35's certificate which has heretofore been sanctioned by the Board .2 Therefore, having carefully considered the Employer's motion, and being satisfied that the circumstances related herein warrant the exercise of the Board's powers over its certificate as requested by the Employer, IT IS ORDERED, that the certificate issued by the Board on June 1, 1956, to International Chemical Workers Union, Local 35, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's em- ployees at its Lakeland, Florida, plant, be, and it hereby is rescinded. MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Order Rescinding Certificate. 2 Telegraph Publishing Company, 102 NLRB 1173. Marston Corporation and International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-3460. March 10, 1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Iris H. Meyer, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds : 1. The Employer is an industrial processor engaged at its Detroit, Michigan, plant in chemically processing and in painting and pack- aging parts and equipment. From about November 12, 1956, when I As in our opinion the record and the briefs adequately set forth the facts and the positions of the parties , the motion of Metal Processors Union, Local 28, International Union of Doll and Toy Workers of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor , for oral argument , is hereby denied. For reasons set forth below , the motions of the Employer and the Intervenor to dismiss the petition on contract bar grounds are also denied. 120 NLRB No. 10.