Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 929 seem rather obvious, had been grinding his own special ax. Forgetting the non- sense about the jaunt to "Sam's joint," it is a mystery how its suspicions were not alerted by at least his new version of Mowen's statement to him about a raise, since it was so manifestly out of keeping with the corroboration it had itself given Mil- burn's testimony on that point at the hearing. And what is still more mystifying is that with all that it knows now, it should still be urging that statement upon us as the boy's moment of truth.i$ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. There has been no showing to warrant a belief that any of the testimony given at the representation hearing was suggested by the union representatives or was the product of any such suggestion. 2. There has been no showing to warrant a belief that any credited testimony may have been falsely given. 3. There has been no showing to warrant changing the result reached by the hearing officer or his underlying evidentiary findings. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of all of the foregoing, and the entire record, it is hereby recom- mended that the relief requested in the motion to adduce be denied and that the same be dismissed for lack of warrant in the evidence or the law. 18 Respondent claims significance for testimony by Rodger Baum to the effect that the morning after the October 8 interview , Milburn telephoned him to say he had been anony- mously threatened against going through with his recantation Milburn categorically denied this. The credibility register of these two witnesses being about even, there is no reason to believe one more than the other on that point. But assuming Baum were to be credited, there is no basis for believing that Milburn was then speaking truthfully to Baum rather than bowing out as gracefully as he could after more sober reflection upon his less than responsible utterances of the previous day Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC- 5269. June 4, 1963 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election dated September 20, 1962,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region on October 19, 1962, among the employees in the appropriate unit. After the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 458 eligible voters, 194 votes were cast for, and 234 votes were cast against, the Petitioner. One ballot was void and six were challenged. The challenged ballots were insufficient to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objec- tions to conduct affecting the results of the election. After investigation, the Regional Director, on November 21, 1962, having found that objections 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D raised substantial and material factual issues which could be resolved only after a hear- ing, directed a hearing be held to resolve the material issues raised by i Not published in NLRB volumes. 142 NLRB No. 108. 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD these objections. He also found objection 3 to be without merit as it lacked the specificity required by Section 102.69(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and accordingly directed that no testimony be taken thereupon. A hearing was held on January 8, 9, and 10, 1963, before hearing officer Joseph Kulkis, in Detroit, Michigan. All parties appeared and participated at the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded to all parties. On February 18, 1963, the hearing officer issued a report on objec- tions to elections in which he found merit in Petitioner's objections 1., 2A, 2B (in part), and 2C and recommended that the election held in this case be set aside. He further recommended that Petitioner's objections 2B (in part) and 2D be overruled. The Employer filed timely exceptions, and a supporting brief, to said report. On March 21, 1963, the Regional Director transferred this case to the Board for ruling on the exceptions of the Employer to the hearing officer'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 McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report, the Employer's exceptions and supporting brief,2 and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing officer, with the modification noted below.' [The Board set aside the election conducted on October 19, 1962.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 2 We find the Employer's exceptions to the hearing officer's report on objections without merit. To the extent the exceptions relate to the credibility findings of the hearing officer, it is Board policy not to overrule a hearing officer's findings of credibility , unletss the preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that he is incorrect. Upon the entire record, such conclusion is not warranted here. Manchester Modes, Inc., et al., 111 NLRB 755 , 760. 'Cf. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 , enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3). 2In adopting the hearing officer 's report on objections we do not rely upon objection 1 insofar as it relates to the speech made by Superintendent of Agencies Pate on October 17, 1962. District 50, United Mine Workers of America and Local 15173, District 50, United Mine Workers of America and Central Soya Company, Inc. Case No. 25-CB-492. June 5, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On October 12, 1962, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair 142 NLRB No. 105.