Mohawk Bedding Corp.

432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mohawk Bedding Corp. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (IND.) Local Union 182 of Utica , Petitioner. Case 3-RC-4623 September 16, 1969 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election executed by the parties and approved by the Regional Director for Region 3 on April 9, 1969. an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on May 20, 1969, under the direction and supervision of the said Regional Director. Upon conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. The tally of ballots shows that there were approximately four eligible voters, and that four ballots were cast, of which four were for the Petitioner, none were against the Petitioner, and none were challenged. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and thereafter, on June 16, 1969, issued his Report on Objections to the Board. In his Report, the Regional Director recommended that the objections be overruled in their entirety, and that the Petitioner be certified. Pursuant to Section 102.69(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed timely 'exceptions to these recommendations with the Board. 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 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. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, 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 truckdrivers at its Broad St., Utica, New York plant, excluding all production and maintenance employees, office clerical employees. professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the objections, the Regional Director's Report on Objections, and the exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommendations. In our opinion, the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation that the objections be overruled raise no material or substantial issue of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director's findings or recommendations, or which would require a hearing. We note specifically that in Atlantic Mills Servicing Corporation of Cleveland, Inc., 120 NLRB 1284. 1288, footnote 7, cited and relied on by the Regional Director, the Board stated: "... . [T]he decision in this case . . . requires the party filing objections to identify the nature of the misconduct on which the objections are based and to submit evidence in support thereof at the time of filing or forthwith upon request from the Regional Director.. ."' In the instant case, the election was held on May 20, 1969, and the Employer's objections were filed on May 28, 1969. The Regional Director requested supporting evidence from the Employer on May 29, 1969, and, on June 5, 1969, received only a restatement of the original objections and an offer to make the unit employees available to the Board. On June 9, 1969, the Regional Director made a second request for evidence in support of the objections. According to its exceptions to the Regional Director's Report, the Employer stated that it would submit further evidence, at some undetermined time in the future, when "it was able to give more specificity to its allegations." The Regional Director is entitled to some discretion in deciding whether supporting evidence has been submitted "forthwith.'' When, on June 9, the Employer still could not specify when it would be able to furnish such evidence, the Regional Director could reasonably decide that the time had arrived for closing the case and beginning the process of issuing his report on the objections. The fact that the Employer thereafter, on June 12, mailed a letter naming certain witnesses who would allegedly support the objections, which letter may or may not have been received prior to issuance of the Regional Director's Report on June 16, is immaterial to the validity of the Regional Director's earlier determination to bring the proceedings to an end. In light of the requests made by the Regional Director in this case, and the Employer's responses, it appears that the Regional Director has not abused his discretion. Moreover, it appears that the evidence finally submitted by the Employer does not support the 178 NLRB No. 68 MOHAWK BEDDING CORP. 433 Employer's contention that the Union was responsible for the alleged misrepresentations. The Employer's letter simply states that certain supervisors would testify that, prior to the election. some employees talked about various benefits they expected to gain by voting for the Union. The proffered evidence does not indicate that the Union was in any way responsible for the beliefs of the employees, nor is there any showing, other than the Employer's bare claim, that these beliefs were in fact erroneous. Accordingly, as the tally shows that the Petitioner has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as bargaining representative. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE It is hereby certified that International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Ind.) Local Union 182 of Utica has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate herein as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.