Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc.

RIO DE ORO URANIUM MINES, INC. 91 the party making the misrepresentation must be in an authoritative position to know the true facts. Here, as the Regional Director found, there were no misrepresentations. Moreover, it seems manifest that the employees would realize that the Employer was not likely to have first-hand knowledge of the amount of Petitioner's dues and assessments and they would be free to weigh the statements of the Employer against those made by the Petitioner.' Finally, it is clear that, as any future deductions for dues, fines, or assessments will have to emanate from the Petitioner, the employees could not reasonably have construed the statement on the paycheck stubs as a threat of reprisal by the Employer. Consequently, we find that the check stubs distributed by the Em- ployer did not impair the employees' freedom of choice, but were merely permissible campaign propaganda. We therefore overrule the Regional Director's findings as to this objection and do not adopt his recommendation that the election herein be set aside. In view of the foregoing, and upon the record as a whole, we find that the Petitioner's objections do not raise substantial or material issues affecting the results of the election and they are hereby over- ruled.10 Accordingly, as the Petitioner failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for District #128, International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO, and that said organization is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees in the unit found appropriate.] 9 Cf. F. H. Snow Canning Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 714. 10 In view of our disposition of this case, we do not find it necessary to pass upon the other exceptions raised by the Employer. Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc. and Local No. 16, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-609. March 13, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region on July 9, 1957, among the employees in the unit described in the stipu- lation. At the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was fur- nished the parties. The tally shows that of the 40 eligible voters, 39 cast valid ballots, of which 20 voted for and 19 against the participat- ing labor organization. 120 NLRB No. 14. 92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD No objections to the election having been received by the close of business on July 16, the Regional Director issued a certification of representatives to the petitioning Union. However, on July 17, the Employer's objections to conduct affecting the results of the election were received by mail. On October 25, 1957, the Board issued a Deci- sion, Order, and Direction reopening the case, setting aside the certifi- cation, and remanding the case to the Regional Director for investiga- tion of the issues raised by the Employer's objections.' The objections filed by the Employer allege that the Petitioner engaged in coercive conduct, made false statements, made threats of reprisal against employees if they did not vote for the Union, and made promises of benefits to the employees if they voted for the Union, and that by such conduct the Union prevented the exercise of a free choice by the employees in the selection of their bargaining represent- ative. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Acting Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objec- tions and, on November 29, 1957, issued and served on the parties his report on objections in which he found that the Employer's objections were without merit, and in which he recommended that the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer timely filed exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's report and a supporting memorandum and requested a hearing on the exceptions. 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 Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion 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 all production and main- tenance employees employed by the Employer at its operations in the vicinity of Grants, New Mexico, excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical employees, timekeepers, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. There is no substantial dispute as to the facts set forth in the Acting Regional Director's report. This report divided the 12 specific allegations of the objections into 4 general categories : (1) alleged false statements regarding duty to vote- for the Union if employees 1119 NLRB 153. RIO DE ORO URANIUM MINES, INC. 93 had signed authorization cards for it; (2) alleged false statements regarding wages and working conditions of employees of other em- ployers; (3) alleged threats; (4) and alleged campaign promises. As the Employer did not specifically except to the Acting Regional Di- rector's recommendation that the objections in counts numbered 4,, 5, 6, 7, and 9, regarding campaign promises, be overruled, we adopt it. Accordingly, we shall consider only the remaining objections. (1) It is alleged that the Union told employees they had to vote for it in the election if they had signed a union authorization card. The report shows that 1 witness attributed this statement to 2 rank- and-file employees while another witness stated that a union agent told him that the employees would be free to vote either "Yes" or "No" in the election regardless of whether or not they had signed a union membership card. The Union has denied this allegation. Further- more, prior to the election, the Employer issued several letters to the employees which stated, among other things, that "The fact that you may have signed a card for the Union does not mean that you are bound to vote for the Union. You still have every right to vote `No.' The election will be by secret ballot and no one will ever know how you as an individual voted." In another letter the Employer stated, "Remember . . . just because you signed a card for the Union does not mean that you have to vote for the Union. You are still com- pletely free to vote against the Union in the election." In these circumstances, we find, in agreement with the Acting Re- gional Director, that, because there is no conclusive evidence that the Union made the remark which is the basis of the objection and be- cause, in any event, the Employer clearly advised the employees of their rights prior to the election, this objection lacks merit. (2) A further objection urged by the Employer refers to alleged false statements made by the Union as to wages and working condi- tions at the Anaconda Company, another employer in the local area. The Employer claims that rank-and-file employees and two union officials made statements as to wage rates at the Anaconda Company. However, the only evidence adduced connecting a union official with a false statement pertained to a statement made by Union Agent Bermudez. A week before the election, Bermudez, while admitting to an employee that he was "not very familiar with wages and working conditions of miners," told that employee that at the Anaconda Com- pany the union scale for miners was $2.25 per hour. In fact, the skilled miners at Anaconda were paid $2.11 per hour. The Acting Regional Director concluded that as this incident occurred about a week before the election, the employee had the opportunity to check and learn the correct wage scale at Anaconda and the Employer had the op- portunity to disprove the incorrect information issued by the Union. Further, the Acting Regional Director found that this was an isolated 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD incident which constituted no basis for setting aside the election. Accordingly, he recommended that the objection be overruled.2 Under these circumstances and particularly as Bermudez' statement was not willfully false, we agree with the Acting Regional Director and adopt his recommendation to overrule the objection.' (3) Finally, the threats alleged are that the employees were told by the Union that (a) their jobs would not be permanent unless the Union won the election, and (b) if the Union won the election those employees who did not vote for the Union would be automatically out of a job. The Union denied making such statements and the investigation did not reveal any evidence that any acknowledged representatives of the Union did make such statements. However, there appear to have been several statements made to the effect that the employees' jobs would be affected if the Union won the election, but these statements were made by fellow employees. As there is no evidence to support the fact that these alleged threats were made by agents of the Union, and as those statements which were made, even if made by union agents, were such that they contained neither asser- tions which the employees could not evaluate nor threats within the Union's power to carry out, the Acting Regional Director properly recommended that these objections be overruled 4 Accordingly, we adopt this recommendation. In its memorandum the Employer argues that where the atmosphere is not conducive to a free election the Board should set aside the elec- tion whether or not the wrongful conduct can be directly attributed to the Union or the Employer. In support of its position the Employer relies upon such cases as Diamond State Poultry and Poinsett Lumber.5 While we agree with the principle enunciated there, these cases are inapposite because they involve general election atmosphere permeated with threats and fear of reprisal. In the instant case, the alleged threats and false statements do not, under all the circumstances create such a coercive atmosphere as to prevent a free and untrammeled choice of a bargaining representative on the part of the employees herein and therefore do not constitute grounds for setting aside the election. Accordingly, we find no merit in this argument. With respect to the Employer's general allegation that the Acting Regional Director's investigation was incomplete, we note that the Acting Regional Director interviewed numerous witnesses in the course of his investigation and that the Employer has failed to come forward and specifically indicate wherein the investigation was incom- plete. The Board has consistently held that a party filing objections 2 Charles T Brandt, Inc, 118 NLRB 956. a The Vellumoid Company, 118 NLRB 1431; Kennametal, Inc., 119 NLRB 1236. * Olson Rug Company, 118 NLRB 1274 5 Diamond State Poultry Co, 107 NLRB 3; Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Com- pany, 116 NLRB 1732. KIEKHAEFER CORPORATION 95 to an election is obliged to furnish evidence in support of such objec- tions and that, unless such evidence is produced, the Regional Director is not required to pursue his investigation further.6 No such support- ing evidence has been produced here. Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention of the Employer. Having considered the Regional Director's report on objections and the Employer's exceptions thereto and supporting memorandum, and having found the Employer's objections to be without merit, we hereby overrule them. As the objections and exceptions do not raise substantial issues of fact, we deny the Employer's request for a hear- ing.' As the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Local No. 16, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit hereinabove found appropriate.] • Audubon Cabinet Company , Inc, 119 NLRB 349 The IIumbo Co , Iue, 117 NLRB 825, 828. Kiekhaefer Corporation and District No. 10, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC- 5595. March 14, 1958 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On August 7, 1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Region, -l Director for the Thirteenth Region among the employees in the agreed appropriate unit. Following the election the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 667 eligible voters, 516 cast ballots, of which 371 were for Kiekhaefer Independent Workers Association, herein called the Independent, 127 for the Petitioner, and 8 against the participating labor organiza- tions. There were 10 challenged ballots, a number insufficient to affect the results of the election. Two ballots were void. On August 12, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election. On November 15, 1957, following an investigation, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found merit in objections Nos. 1, 2, and 12, and rejected the remaining ob- 120 NLRB No. 17.