Ormet Corp.

ORMET CORPORATION 159 and on the date of the election.' As Bramer and Hanshew were not only temporary employees on the date of the election but were not in the voting unit, they were not eligible to vote. We therefore agree with the Regional Director's recommendations and hereby sustain the challenges to the ballots of Fred Bramer, Harold Gain, and John Hanshew. Accordingly, as the Intervenor has received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall cerl` fy it as the bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Board certified International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 10-119, as the designated collective-bargaining rep- resentative of the employees of the Employer in the appropriate unit described in paragraph numbered 2.] ' Gulf States Asphalt Company, 106 NLRB 1212. Ormet Corporation and Baton Rouge Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 15-RC-1801 and 15-RC-1802.' Novem- ber 19, 1958 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On July 1 and.2, 1958, pursuant to a stipulation for certification ^.ipon consent election, an election was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region among the employees in the agreed-upon unit. Following the elec- tion, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 287 eligible voters, 282 cast ballots, of which 130 were for the Metal Trades Council, 55 for the Aluminum Workers,2 90 for the Steelworkers, 5 for no labor organi- zation, and 2 ballots were void. As the results of the election were inconclusive, a runoff election was held on July 29 and 30, 1958, between the Metal Trades Council and the Steelworkers, pursuant to Section 102.70 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 7, as amended. The tally of ballots thereafter furnished the parties showed that of approximately 286 eligible voters, 282 ballots were cast, of which 124 were for the Steelworkers and 158 for the Metal Trades Council. 1 Cases Nos. 15-RC-1801 and 15-RC-1802 were consolidated by the Regional Director prior to the first election. E Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of a showing of interest. 122 NLRB No. 30. 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On August 1, 1958, the Steelworkers filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the runoff election. After an investi- gation, the Regional Director on September 18, 1958, issued and served on the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the Petitioner's objections did not raise substantial or material issues affecting the results of the runoff election. Accordingly, he recom- mended that the Metal Trades Council be certified as bargaining agent for the employees in the appropriate unit. The Steelworkers filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain 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. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the Employer 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 employed by the Em- ployer at its Burnside, Louisiana, plant, excluding all office clerical employees, technical employees, professional employees, watchmen and guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Steelworkers' objections to the election are essentially as follows : 8 1. The Parish sheriff, a personal friend of the plant manager, saw to it that Steelworkers' representatives were harassed at every ,opportunity. Local people were told they could obtain jobs only on the sheriff's terms. A reign of terror was created among Negroes who were threatened if they supported the Steelworkers. 2. Members of the Police Jury of the Parish campaigned ac- tively•against the Steelworkers, and initiated a whispering cam- paign against them. 3. The Metal Trades Council boasted during the pre-election campaign that it had the blessing of the Company. Council agents were permitted to roam through the plant campaigning for the Metal Trades Council. 4.' The - day before the : run-off election, employee Campo brought Business Agent Riddle into the company machine shop 3 The Steelworkers assigned no numbers to its objections . The numbers were assigned by the Regional Director for purposes of clarity. ORMET CORPORATION 161 to persuade employees to vote for Metal Trades Council. Riddle told the foreman that, after the election, Campo would be the shop steward, and the foreman signified his approval. 5. Metal Trades Council agents were given free access to the plant to persuade, threaten and coerce employees, and in many cases were escorted by foremen. In addition, several hundred building trades employees who were working on construction in the plant were permitted to roam the plant at will to carry on a vicious whispering campaign against the Steelworkers. Concerning the first objection, the Regional Director reported that no evidence in support thereof had been offered by the Steelworkers, and none was obtained by him in the course of his investigation. The Regional Director also found that the Steelworkers failed to support the allegations in its second objection. The only evidence un- covered was that one employee stated he had been contacted by a member of the police jury prior to the first election, and asked to vote for the Aluminum Workers; no mention was made of the Steelworkers. Five witnesses were offered by the Steelworkers in support of its third objection. However, none gave evidence which would support the Steelworkers' allegations. On the contrary, one other employee interviewed stated that, as a Steelworkers' supporter, he had as much freedom in talking with other employees as did Metal Trades Coun- cil supporters. As to the fourth objection, the witness offered by the Steelworkers stated that on one occasion employee Campo introduced Business Agent Riddle to workers in the machine shop. However, the evidence also indicates that Riddle left shortly after being introduced, and there is no direct evidence that any mention was made to the foreman about Campo's being made shop steward. Statements by Campo, Riddle, and the foreman corroborate this version of the facts. In regard to the fifth objection, none of the five employees presented by the Steelworkers stated that Metal Trades Council representatives had threatened or coerced employees. Although these witnesses in- dicated that construction employees did wear Metal Trades Council- stickers and conversed with employees, one Steelworkers' witness stated that he himself placed Steelworkers stickers around the plant, and that the Metal Trades Council stickers may have appeared in retalia- tion for Steelworkers activities. Other employees interviewed stated" that they had engaged in conversations with fellow workers urging support for the Steelworkers. In view of the lack of evidence to support the Steelworkers' objec- tions, we find no grounds for setting aside the election. The Steel- workers does not take issue with any specific findings of fact made by the Regional Director, or with any particular aspect of his investiga- 5 0 5 39 5-5 9-v of . 122-12 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, but contends only that "we are certain that a-thorough investiga- tion in this matter would have uncovered ample evidence to substan- tiate the objections presented by the Steelworkers." The Board has held, however, that a party filing objections to an election is obliged to furnish evidence in support of its objections and that, unless such evidence is produced, the Regional Director is not required to pursue his investigation further.4 No such supporting evidence has been pro- duced here. Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention of the Steelworkers. Having considered the objections, the Regional Director's report and the exceptions thereto, and having found the objections to be without merit, we hereby overrule them in agreement with the Re gional Director. As the objections and exceptions do not raise sub- stantial issues of fact, we deny the Steelworkers' request for a hear- ing.5 As the Metal Trades Council has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the runoff election, we shall certify it as the col- lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Baton Rouge Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective -bargaining representative of the employees in the unit hereinabove found appropriate.] Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., 120 NLRB 91. 6 General Electric Co., 119 NLRB 1262. Divco-Wayne Corporation , Wayne Works Division and Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 86-RC 1667. November 20, 1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd R. Fraker, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 1 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the bearing. 122 NLRB No. 27.