Great Lakes Chemical Corp.

422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Great Lakes Chemical Corporation and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 26-RC-3295 February 12, 1969 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election approved on October 8, 1968,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 18, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 26, among employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate herein. At the close of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished each of the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally of ballots showed that of approximately 42 eligible voters, 22 cast their ballots for, and 16 against, Petitioner, 2 ballots were challenged. On October 25, the Employer filed timely objections to the conduct of the election. On November 13, after an investigation in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director issued and served upon the parties his Report on Objections to Election in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's Report.z Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the 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 the following employees 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 and regular full-time truckdrivers employed at the 'All dates herein are 1968 The Employer having filed no exceptions as to the Regional Director's recommendation as to the Employer's objections No 2, the Regional Director' s recommendation that such objection be overruled is hereby adopted pro forma. El Dorado, Arkansas, plant of the Employer, excluding all office clerical employees, laboratory employees, casual employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's Report, and the exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the recommendations of the Regional Director. We agree with the Regional Director that there is insufficient evidence that a statement made by Union representative Stratton at a union meeting held on October _16, contained a misrepresentation so as to warrant setting the election aside. The Employer's version of Stratton's statement is based upon a remark made by an employee, at a social gathering at a local tavern hosted by the Employer's plant manager, following the election. During this social gathering, which started at about 5 p.m. and continued until between midnight and I a.m., the plant manager inquired of the employees present as to their reasons for wanting a union. Upon being informed, by an employee, that it was a question of wages the plant manager voiced the opinion that the Employer was paying the highest wage rates in the area. To the latter, an employee made the alleged remark that Stratton had told them at a union meeting on October 16, that another company in the area paid operators $4 per hour, which was in excess of the Employer's rate. The version reported to the Employer did not purport to be a full and complete version of Stratton's remarks. The Regional Director's investigation which included testimony from the employee who made the remark to the plant manager, another employee who was at the meeting, and Stratton, disclosed that the statement made at the union meeting was a properly qualified one and at variance with the Employer's version. In our opinion, considering the social circumstances in which the remark was made to the plant manager, which in and of themselves were not conducive to accuracy, the uncorroborated, off hand and hearsay version of Stratton's remarks offered by the Employer could not, in the circumstances, be construed as evidencing a substantial and material misrepresentation so as to warrant setting the election aside . (Hollywood Ceramics Co., Inc., 140 NLRB 221). In view of our finding herein the Employer's request for a hearing is denied. (Sun Drug Co., 147 NLRB 221, enfd. 359 F.2d (C.A.3). 408 Accordingly, as we have overruled the Employer's objections to the election, and as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify it as the collective-bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. 174 NLRB No. 79 GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORP. 423 CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE Consent Election, approved on August 7, 1968, and pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act the said labor organization is the exclusive representative of all the It is hereby certified that the Petitioner has been employees in such unit for purposes of collective designated and by a majority of the employees of bargaining with respect to rates of pay, hours of the Employer in the unit found appropriate and employment , and other terms and conditions of agreed to in the Stipulation for Certification upon employment. y