Georgia-Pacific Corp.

252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Georgia-Pacific Corporation , Columbus Plant, Chemi- cal Division-Resins and Formaldehyde and Team- sters Union Local No. 413, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-9353 June 1, 1972 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election approved on December 29, 1971, an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 14, 1972, under the direction and supervi- sion of the Regional Director for Region 9 among the employees in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, which showed that, of approximately 15 eligible voters, 15 cast ballots of which 8 were for, and 7 against, the Petitioner, and none were challenged. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation, and on March 6, 1972, issued and duly served on the parties his report on objections, appropriate excerpted portions of which are attached hereto as the Appendix, recommending that the Board overrule the objections in their entirety, and issue a Certification of Representative. On April 3, 1972, the Employer filed timely excep- tions to the report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding 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 Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation 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 the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All employees, including truckdrivers, but exclud- ing all office clerical employees, laboratory employees, salesmen and all guards, professional employees and supervisors, as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the Regional Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.' Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots has been cast for Teamsters Union Local No. 413, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 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 the employees in the unit found appropriate herein for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. ' In excepting, the Employer contends that the Regional Director did not adequately investigate the facts underlying the objections While a Regional Director is obliged to carefully investigate any objective evidence offered by an objecting party to show demonstrable misconduct , he is not charged with independently ferreting possible misdeeds when presented with only speculation that improprieties may have occurred Here the information supplied by the Employer was the vaguest kind of double hearsay which in no case even identified any individual alleged to have made an improper statement We cannot say that a failure to probe further this kind of speculative information was a breach of his duty of diligence APPENDIX THE OBJECTIONS The Employer's objections allege, in substance, that agents and representatives of the Petitioner threatened employees in the voting unit that they would be fined and harassed if they did not vote for the Petitioner. The Employer bases its knowledge of alleged Petitioner misconduct affecting the election on reports by an employee made to the general manager of the Columbus plant of Georgia-Pacific Corpora- tion, David Bugge. These reports, as set forth below, involve a total of six employees, including the first employee, who reported to Bugge. Bugge also furnished an affidavit to an agent of the undersigned setting forth his account of these matters. Bugge states that on January 8, 1972, he was approached by the first employee, who reported 197 NLRB No. 35 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP., COLUMBUS PLANT 253 learning from a second employee at the plant, that he, the second employee, had heard from sources, which were not identified, that those who spoke or voted against the Petitioner would be subject to harassment and fines. The first employee also said that he was told to watch what he said. On January 14, 1972, immediately following the election, the first employee was called into the office by Bugge to tell Fred DeChant, corporate personnel director of the Employer's Portland, Oregon, head- quarters, what he had previously told Bugge on January 8, 1972. According to Bugge, the first employee repeated his earlier report and in addition said that a third employee had overheard what the second employee had said to him. The first employee also told Bugge and DeChant that Bugge had made a mistake in putting a fourth employee on the same shift along with two prounion employees, one of whom was the Petitioner's observer at the election, because they had allegedly "gotten to him." Bugge also claims that at a later date the first employee again came to him and told him, without further elaboration, about a fifth employee who had also heard of the threats. At this meeting, the first employee also referred to a sixth employee, whose name he did not volunteer, who had told him that the Petitioner "had something on someone" which could cost him his job if known by the Employer. Bugge states that on January 14, 1972, he called the fifth employee into his office after hearing rumors that some employees were considering quitting because of the Petitioner's success in the election. Bugge wanted to counsel the fifth employee against leaving and asked him not to do anything rash. Bugge states that he mentioned to this employee that some of the employees may have been coerced and threatened by the Petitioner. According to Bugge, the fifth employee said he had heard talk of possible threats and harassment, but that nothing further was said. The foregoing constitutes the basis of the Employ- er's assertion that Petitioner misconduct affecting the election had occurred. It is evident that Bugge was not informed in any of the reports of the first employee or fifth employee that any particular person had made any threats. All that Bugge describes in his statement are hearsay references to prospective and possible misconduct with no specific person or Petitioner agents identified as being responsible. The first employee was interviewed and furnished an affidavit to an agent of the undersigned. Although he generally substantiates Bugge's account of their discussions, he goes into greater detail about the alleged remarks made to him by the second employ- ee. He states that approximately 2 weeks before the election, conducted on January 14, 1972, the second employee told him about overhearing some other men say that anyone who talked out or voted against the Petitioner would be subject to harassment and petty fines. When pressed to identify the men, the second employee replied that he had forgotten them. On another occasion, prior to the election, but later than his discussion with the second employee, the first employee claims he spoke to the fourth employee who said that he had overheard three employees talking about the possibility of harassing some of the Employer's employees. According to the fourth employee, the Petitioner's observer at the election was one of the three men involved in the discussion. The Petitioner's position on the objections, as furnished by Ray Finnerty, its organizer, is a categorical denial of all claims of misconduct. Finnerty's name is nowhere mentioned in connection with any claimed objectionable conduct by any Employer witnesses. Finnerty was the only designat- ed Petitioner organizer at the plant. The undersigned concludes, after careful consider- ation of the matter, that the Employer has failed to provide any substantial evidence of misconduct affecting the results of the election which can be attributed to the Petitioner or its agents. It is clear from the foregoing that the Employer's objections are based upon hearsay accounts of two employees, neither of whom personally was the target of any alleged Petitioner conduct. Nor do their accounts in any way show that the Petitioner or any of its agents were responsible for or engaged in any such conduct with respect to other employees. At best, these accounts suggest that some employees felt or thought that there would or might be some harassment or other adverse action taken against employees who opposed the Petitioner. Assuming, without finding, that the various statements in question were, in fact, made, the Board has consist- ently held that such statements made by rank-and- file employees are not sufficient to create an atmosphere of confusion and fear of reprisal suffi- cient to constitute interference warranting setting aside an election.4 4 Dornback Furnace & Foundry Company, 115 NLRB 350, 353, While's Uvalde Mines, 110 NLRB 278, 279, Ponnsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 107 NLRB 234, E I DuPont DeNemours & Company, 105 NLRB 710,711-712 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION As the tally of ballots discloses that the Petitioner For the reasons fully set forth above, the under- has received a majority of the valid votes cast, it is signed recommends that the Board overrule the further recommended that the Board issue an Employer's objections in their entirety. appropriate Certification of Representative.