Augusta Cartage Co.

AUGUSTA CARTAGE-COMPANY 73 Augusta Cartage Company and General Drivers, Warehouse men and Helpers Local Union No . 509, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-1002. March 10, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections 1 of the, Board, dated December 14, 1957, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on January 9, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region among the employees in the appropriate unit. Following the election the Regional Director furnished the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of approxi- mately 14 eligible voters, 14 cast valid ballots of which 10 were for,, and 3 against, the Petitioner. One ballot was challenged. On January 15, 1958, the Employer filed timely objections to the conduct of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regula- tions of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and on January 28, 1958, issued and served on the parties his report and recommendation on objections, in which he^ found that the Employer's objections did not raise any substantial and material issues with respect to the election and recommended that the objections be overruled. On February 6, 1958, the Employer timely filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. 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 Bean and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer's first three objections pertain to the Petitioner's compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h). At the preelection hear- ing in this case the Employer attempted to litigate certain aspects of the Petitioner's compliance, and shortly thereafter filed a collateral request for an administrative determination of the Petitioner's com- pliance status. The Board found the contentions at the hearing not cognizable in the representation proceeding,2 but a collateral investi- gation of the Petitioner's compliance status was conducted by the Regional Director. The Regional Director found in effect that the allegations of the Employer in its collateral request were lacking in merit. The Board thereafter determined that no further investigation of the Petitioner's compliance status was warranted and issued an administrative determination that the Petitioner was in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h). In its objections and exceptions the Employer has reiterated the allegations contained in its request for an administrative determina- 1119 NLRB 939 (filed sub nom K. D Shaver d/b/a Shaver Transfer Company) Z Supra, at footnote 3. 120 NLRB No. 12. 74 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD tion' 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.' 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 a free expression of choice by the voters was prevented in the election as conducted. Morever, the Regional Director has broad discretion in making arrangements with respect to conduct of elections,4 and there is no evidence that this discretion has been' 'abused.' Accordingly, we overrule the Employer's fourth objection. [The Board certified General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local- Union, No.: 509 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.] 3 119 NLRB 939 at footnote 3. 4 Milham Products Co., Inc, 114 NLRB 1544. Mine & Mill Supply Company and ' International Chemical, °' Workers Union, Local 35, 'AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC-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.