Dayton Tire & Ruber Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dayton Tire & Rubber Co. and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL- CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Case 16-RC-7295 January 26, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING HEARING The National Labor Relations Board has consid- ered objections to an election held November 17, 1976,1 and the Acting Regional Director's report recommending disposition of same. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and hereby adopts the Acting Regional Direc- tor's findings and recommendations. 2 The Acting Regional Director found that other conduct, not alleged in Petitioner's specific objec- tions, consisting of an alleged interrogation by a supervisor, an alleged threat of reprisal by another supervisor, and the Employer's repeated distribution of publications and circulars relative to certain benefits, such as dental insurance, cost-of-living allowance, a pension plan, and other similar subjects, raised substantial material and factual issues which warrant a hearing. We agree with the Acting Region- al Director's findings and, accordingly, we shall direct a hearing on these matters. In our concurrent decision in American Safety Equipment Corporation, 234 NLRB 501, (1978), is- sued this date, we had occasion to restate the reasons for our policy permitting a Regional Director to set aside an election because of objectionable conduct discovered during his investigation even though that particular conduct was not the subject of a specific objection filed by a party. Our dissenting colleague criticizes this policy and would not, absent excep- tional circumstances, consider conduct which is not the subject of a specifically alleged objection. His criticism is threefold. He urges that our policy is at odds with portions of our current Rules and Regulations; 3 he complains that it confers "imper- missibly broad" discretionary powers upon the Re- gional Directors in their conduct of postelection investigations; and he maintains that it sanctions "an indeterminate investigatory period" in contravention of the purposes of the statute. We disagree. Contrary to the dissent, there is no inconsistency between our current policy and the requirement expressed in Section 102.69(a) and (c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations of a "short statement of I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election. The tally was 446 for, and 553 against, Petitioner. There were 20 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results. 2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, the Board adopts, proforma, the Acting Regional Director's recommendation that Objections I through 8 be overruled. 234 NLRB No. 96 reasons" for filed objections. The purpose of that requirement is twofold: (1) it requires the objecting party to pinpoint its allegations of misconduct with reasonable clarity so that the Regional Director can determine whether that conduct, if it occurred, would necessitate another election, and (2) it obligates the objecting party, on request of the Regional Director, to furnish evidence in support of the allegations before any investigation can go forward. 4 Thus, these provisions merely set forth the minimum require- ments for obtaining the mandated investigation by the Regional Director and nothing elsewhere in our Rules and Regulations can be read to limit consider- ation of other evidence of misconduct which the Regional Director uncovers or which is otherwise brought to his attention once that investigation has commenced. Moreover, the narrow construction of the Rules and Regulations proposed by our colleague is incon- sistent with the plain mandate of Section 102.121 of the Rules which states that the Rules and Regula- tions "be liberally construed to effectuate the pur- poses and provisions of the act." 5 Our colleague's professed alarm over the danger of vesting the Regional Directors with overly broad discretionary powers and of creating a potential for undue delay in the administration of the Board's processes is also unfounded. We note that the Act permits the Board to delegate broad authority in representation matters to the Regional Directors and the Board has formally done so with the result that the Regional Directors have long held and success- fully exercised such power. Nonetheless, our col- league asserts that granting the Regional Directors discretion to go beyond the allegations of misconduct contained in the filed objections invites inequities caused by variances among the Regional Directors in its exercise, thereby defeating the attainment of a uniform national policy in the handling of such matters. The error in this argument is that, inevitably, there will be variances in scope and duration of all investigations. Thus, in every case, including one in which the investigation is limited solely to the specific filed objections, the extent to which the Regional Director pursues any matter is dictated by his judgment as to whether further investigation will be fruitful and upon consideration of other factors, including, for example, the Region's workload and available staff. If any inequities result from variances 3 Specifically Secas. 102.69(a) and (c) of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended. 4 Atlantic Mills Servicing Corporation of Clevelan4 Inc.. 120 NLRB 1284 (1958). 5 It is also worth noting that nothing in the current Rules and Regulations prescribes any time limits for the Regional Director's investiga- tion of alleged election misconduct. 504 DAYTON TIRE & RUBBER CO. in the scope and duration of investigations, they most certainly will not be eliminated by confining investi- gations solely to the specific objections. 6 Finally, we reject as unpersuasive our colleagues' contention that our policy encourages the filing of unsubstantial objections and invites delay occa- sioned by prolonged open-ended investigations. Our policy is of some 30 years' standing, and we find no evidence of widespread abuse of the Board's processes or protracted delays. Moreover, the possi- bility that the parties may file at least one specific, but unfounded, objection either in the hope that the Regional Director will discover other misconduct or for the purpose of delaying the effectuation of the Board's certification procedure is adequately ac- counted for by the requirement that, upon the Regional Director's request, an objecting party must provide sufficient evidence to support its allegations. We are satisfied that the Regional Directors will continue in the future, as they always have in the past, to expeditiously dispose of objections unsup- ported by evidence.7 Thus, despite our colleague's apparant preoccupation with dubious economies of time, he has been unable to show, and we are unable to find, any great likelihood of protracted delay in the effectuation of the Board's procedures. Accord- ingly, we shall direct a hearing be held in this case. ORDER It is hereby ordered that a hearing be held before a designated Hearing Officer for the purpose of receiv- ing evidence to resolve the issues raised by Petition- er's Objection 9 limited to the evidence, as found by the Acting Regional Director, of an alleged interro- gation by a supervisor, an alleged threat of reprisal by a supervisor, and the distribution by the Employer of publications and circulars relative to benefits such as dental insurance, cost-of-living allowance, a pen- sion plan, and other similar subjects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing Officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served on the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said objection. Within the time prescribed by the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, any party may file with the Board in Washington, D.C., eight copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve 5 Our colleague presents a false dilemma in stating that the choice is between requiring, in all cases, an exhaustive open-ended investigation or restricting investigations solely to the matters specifically alleged in the objections. We are satisfied that a policy which relies on the informed discretion of the individual most cognizant of all the circumstances, the Regional Director, strikes a fair balance between these extremes. a copy thereof on each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendations of the Hearing Officer. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled matter be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional Director for Region 16 for the purpose of arranging such hearing and that said Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof. MEMBER PENELLO, dissenting: I dissent from the majority's direction of a hearing to consider issues raised by conduct which none of the parties to this proceeding have specifically alleged in timely written objections to the election. Petitioner's Objection 9, which purportedly raises the issues to be considered at the hearing, avers only that: "By the above and other acts, the employer has interfered with, restrained, coerced and intimidated employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act." Since the "above" acts referred to involve specific allegations in Objections I through 8 which have been conclusively overruled, the Regional Director has recommended, and the Board majority has approved, an evidentiary hearing on conduct whose untimely allegation by Petitioner during the Regional Director's investigation is osten- sibly justified by the mere timely allegations of "other acts." For reasons hereinafter stated, I would not permit a Regional Director to investigate a general conclu- sionary objection such as Petitioner's Objection 9, nor would I, barring exceptional circumstances, either direct an evidentiary hearing or set aside an election on the basis of conduct not specifically complained of in timely objections. I believe that our colleagues' contrary opinion renders nugatory the obligation of the objecting party to provide specific statements of reasons for its objections, vests imper- missibly broad discretion in Regional Directors with respect to the postelection investigatory process, and authorizes an indeterminate investigatory period in contravention of the fundamental statutory purpose of representation elections. All of the relevant portions of our current Rules and Regulations covering the procedure for the filing and investigation of election objections are as fol- lows: 7 Our colleague's suggestion that in any event objectionable activity not discovered and alleged within 5 working days after the election is unlikely to have "affected the result of the election" is at once remarkable and puzzling. We see no reason to reward surreptitious activity, or to say that clandestine misconduct is in principle unlikely to have had an effect on the election. 505 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) . . . Within 5 days after the tally of ballots have been furnished, any party may file with the regional director . . . objections to . . . conduct affecting the results of the election, which shall contain a short statement of the reasons there- fore. ... The party filing objections shall, upon request, promptly furnish to the regional director the evidence available to it to support the objec- tions.8 * * * (c) If objections are filed to . . . conduct affecting the result of the election . . . the regional director shall . . investigate such objec- tions . . . [and] shall prepare and cause to be served on the parties a report on . . objec- tions. . ... 9 The above language unambiguously directs any party wishing to object to conduct affecting the results of the election to file its objections within 5 days, to assert in a short statement of reasons the occurrence of conduct which, if verified, would justify setting the election aside, and to be prepared promptly to furnish evidence supporting such asser- tion. It also appears to be the plain meaning of the Rules and Regulations that the Regional Director must base his or her investigation and report on the matters alleged in "such" objections.' 0 I fully agree with my colleagues that Section 102.121 of the Rules requires that the aforemen- tioned sections "be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the act." In accord with this rule of construction, I have concurred in sustaining an objection alleging an employer's pree- lection disparate enforcement of no-solicitation rules when the Regional Director's investigation of this objection led to the discovery of the employer's preelection maintenance of facially invalid written no-solicitation rules. The objectionable conduct dis- covered was closely related to the conduct specifical- ly alleged." I National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Sec. 102.69(a). 9 Id., Sec. 102.69(c). 1o In substantiation of this interpretation, the authors of the most exhaustive study of our treatment of postelection objections have concluded independently that: The machinery provided by the Board is ... primarily geared, not toward detecting and preventing any conduct which might interfere with the voters' freedom of choice, but only toward resolving those infractions actually charged by one of the parties and supported by an affirmative showing of evidence. Williams, Janus, and Huhn, "NLRB Regulation of Election Conduct," at p. 12, Industrial Research Unit of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (1974). 11 American Safety Equipment Corporation, 234 NLRB 501, issued this day. A liberal construction of the Board's requirements for filing objections should not, however, totally excuse parties from complying with these require- ments. Consistent with such a reading, we have not hesitated to reject objections for lack of specificity (when not appended to other specific objections) 12 or for untimeliness.1 3 On the other hand, we have eschewed a draconian application of the 5-day rule where the objecting party substantially complied and where its failure to meet the deadline exactly was based in part on the difficulty of completing its own investigation of the election.1 4 These decisions reflect an understanding that under our rules it is the responsibility of the objecting party to decide within the time allowed what conduct it intends to rely on in seeking to set the election aside. Nevertheless, the Board has up to now maintained the practice, established before the current version of the pertinent Rules provision was adopted, of allow- ing the Regional Directors to consider as a basis for setting aside an election any evidence of objection- able conduct not alleged in the objections. This practice effectively negates the requirement of speci- ficity in objections which the Rules impose and weakens the related requirements of timeliness and supportability. The provisions for "a short statement of the reasons" for the objections was first promulgated as part of Series 4 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which became effective on September 11, 1946. Prior thereto it was sufficient for a statement of objections to be general in nature.15 Since specificity was not required, the Board naturally did not restrict the investigation of objectionable conduct to those mat- ters which were specifically alleged.16 Following promulgation of the provision requiring specificity, however, the Board simply continued to treat the question of the proper scope of the investigation as before, without articulating any reasons other than by reference to pre-1946 cases.1 7 As a result of this adjudicatory bootstrapping, confusion persisted for a few years after the 1946 changes even as to whether a 12 Wilson-Sinclair Co., 191 NLRB 341 (1971). 13 Wilson-Sinclair Co., supra, Sig Wold Storage & Transfer, Inc., 205 NLRB 378 (1973). 14 Bechtel Incorporated, 218 NLRB 827 (1975). 15 Reliance Manufacturing Company of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 67 NLRB 515, 519(1946). is See, e.g., General Motors Corporation, Allison Division, 46 NLRB 574, 583 (1942); Miss Otillia ZueIy, et al., d/b/a Fischer Chair Company, 71 NLRB 806 (1946) (objections filed prior to rule change) I? See, e.g., Merrimac Hat Corporation, 85 NLRB 329, 361 (1949); J. 1. Case Company, 86 NLRB 12 (1949), in which no rationale or case citations are given; Hobart Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 203 (1950), citing Merrimac Hat and J. 1. Case, supra. Hobart Manufacturing has in turn begotten a line of more recent cases, prominent among which is Thomas Products Co., Division of Thomas Industries, Inc., 169 NLRB 706 (1968), which, quoting the policy enunciated in Hobart, justifies it only as having been "long held." 506 DAYTON TIRE & RUBBER CO. general protest of the election, formerly permitted, would be accepted as a valid statement of objec- tions.'8 That question was finally put to rest when the Board decided unanimously that the new Rules provision would be enforced strictly by requiring specificity.1 9 Solitary general statements of objec- tions to the election were thereafter impermissible, but, because of the policy of continuing to allow consideration to be given to matters not alleged in specific objections, confusion lingers over the practi- cal significance of the 1946 Rules changes. Any confusion has been dispelled by the determi- nation of my colleagues to direct a hearing in this case on the basis of evidence supplied by the objecting party during the Acting Regional Direc- tor's investigation of a general statement of objec- tions and several nonmeritorious specific objections. In addition, the majority's interpretation of the Board's specificity requirements in the postelection objections process governed by the current Rules and Regulations logically suggests its view toward the companion requirements of timeliness and prima facie substantiality. If an objecting party is not obligated to define the limits of a Regional Director's investigation by specific allegations of objectionable conduct, then it must be to some degree relieved of the obligation to provide evidence in support of these allegations. Furthermore, a party to the election can conveniently toll the 5-day rule with respect to all election period conduct by the timely filing of any specific objection, even though the conduct ultimate- ly discovered and found objectionable may be totally unrelated to the conduct alleged.2 It is therefore apparent that the only requirement which the current Board majority would absolutely impose upon an objecting party is that it must file within the stated 5-day period at least one specific objection, albeit nonmeritorious, in order to initiate a Regional Director's investigation. There is no real necessity even to include the catchall allegation of "other acts" contained in Petitioner's Objection 9 herein. Accordingly, there is no practical difference between the majority's interpretation of the current Board Rules mandating a short statement of reasons and pre-1946 versions of the Rules which clearly permitted general statements of objections. I See Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc.. 113 NLRB 879, 881 (1955) (dissenting opinion) and cases cited therein. le Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc.. supra (majority and dissenting opinions). Member Murdock dissented as to the application of this strict enforcement retroactively in the case then before the Board. ao 1 note, in contrast, that the IO(b) statute of limitations continues to run against conduct unrelated to that which is alleged in an unfair labor practice charge. 21 E.g.. Hobart Manufacturing Company. supra: "fT he jurisdiction of a Regional Director in making a post-election investigation is not limited to the issues raised by the parties." N.LR.B. v. Realist, Inc.. 328 F.2d 840, 843 (C.A. 7, 1964), cert. denied 377 U.S. 994 (1964): "The director may properly decline to consider objections of the parties that are not timely brought to II Several of the cases involving the propriety of a Regional Director's consideration of matters not specifically alleged in objections contain language implying that the Regional Director's action in this respect is discretionary.21 On the other hand, the Board has held that the Regional Director cannot ignore prima facie evidence of unalleged objection- able conduct which is discovered during the investi- gation of timely filed objections. 2 2 This statement of law places few practical limitations on a Regional Director's implicit discretionary investigatory pow- ers, however.2 3 As the Board's investigatory agent in postelection proceedings, a Regional Director pos- sesses the authority to decide the time to be spent by the Board in independent pursuit of evidence of objectionable conduct, whether or not alleged by the objecting party; the time to be accorded the object- ing party in making its own investigation and producing evidence in support of timely specific and general objections or previously unalleged objec- tions; 24 and the extent to which the Board will on its own initiative explore election period conduct not specifically alleged to be objectionable. In sum, the present state of Board law is that during the course of postelection investigations Regional Directors can, but need not, exceed the scope of specific allegations in objections, until such time as evidence of unal- leged objectionable conduct is encountered. The discretionary decisions by the Regional Direc- tor as to the scope and duration of any investigation can ultimately determine whether he or she will actually encounter evidence of unalleged conduct which must thereafter be considered. Once the investigation has concluded and a report has issued, the objecting party cannot then submit evidence of unalleged conduct which, if discovered during the investigation, would have warranted setting aside the election.2 5 For example, it is entirely conceivable that in this proceeding the Acting Regional Director for Region 16 could have disregarded the allegation of "other acts," confined his investigation to conduct specifically alleged in Petitioner's Objections I through 8, and issued a report recommending over- ruling the objections in their entirety prior to his attention. But this limitation does not preclude his consideration of matters which he may choose to investigate independently, regardless of the fact they may be included in the objections." Cf. Fasco Industries, Inc.. 173 NLRB 522, 529, fn. 54 (1968). 22 National Electric Coil Div. McGraw-Edison Conmpny. 184 NLRB 691 (1970); cf. First Health Care Corporation d/b/a Hanford House Health Care. 210 NLRB 188 (1974); Hecla Mining Company, 218 NLRB 860 (1975). 3 As further illustration of the confused state of affars, see Winchester Spinning Corp.. 168 NLRB 411, 425 (1967), in which the Board did not pass on the Trial Examiner's dictum to the effect that then current Board policy precluded consideration of unalleged conduct. 24 E.g., Sambo's North Division Store No. 144, 223 NLRB 565 (1976). 25 See Hecla Mining Company, supra. 507 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Petitioner's submission of evidence relating to previ- ously unalleged conduct. The Acting Regional Direc- tor and the Board, myself included, would have concurred in a different result herein, notwithstand- ing the existence of possibly objectionable, but unalleged, conduct during the election period. An internal study of practices in our Regional Offices shows a wide variance among the Regional Directors in their exercise of discretionary investiga- tory powers. Some Regional Directors frequently consider acts not specifically alleged while others almost never do so. Furthermore, a Regional Direc- tor's discretionary investigation of evidence beyond the scope of specific objections may be unduly influenced by regional caseload factors which should not properly have any bearing on the type of investigation to which an objecting party is fairly entitled. Instead of a national policy on the consider- ation of matters not alleged in the objections, the Board has a number of regional policies. We think it is time for us to put our house in order by enforcing an equitable uniform policy with regard to the scope of postelection proceedings on objections. 2 6 III In seeking to remedy the inequities of discretionary investigations of unalleged conduct, I have contem- plated whether to advocate a requirement that our Regional Offices conduct exhaustive investigations designed to discover and confirm the existence of any conduct that arguably might provide a basis for setting an election aside, or a requirement that such investigations be limited to making a reasonable determination as to whether there is a basis for the specific allegations of wrongdoing which parties to the election themselves have brought to the Board's attention. I prefer the latter alternative for the following reasons. First, as discussed above, focusing on the specific basis on which the objections were filed promotes the purposes of our current Rules provisions governing the filing and investigation of objections. Requiring open-ended investigations seems to be inconsistent with the spirit, if not the latter, of these provisions. 25 Cf. Garner v. Tearnsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 776 (A.F.L), 346 U.S. 485, 490-491 (1953). s' In 1958, an unusual case arose in which a union filed objections alleging that the employer had coercively interrogated employees. Although the union had not known about the interrogations at the time it filed its objections, it had guessed right and had obtained supporting evidence in time to respond promptly to the Regional Director's request for such evidence. By a three-to-two vote, the Board held that in these circumstances the union's lack of knowledge at the time it filed the objections was immaterial. The majority reasoned that in determining whether an investiga- tion was warranted, the Regional Director should be guided by the objecting party's ability to supply supporting evidence, aside from that ability, the Regional Director might not be able to determine when the party acquired its knowledge. It further explained that requiring the objecting party to (I) identify the nature of the alleged misconduct and (2) submit supporting Second and more importantly, the purposes of the Rules provisions conform to the purposes of the Act in attempting to ensure prompt determination of election results so that the fundamental question of whether a union has established its majority status can be resolved. Open-ended investigations tend to result in protracted delays during which all parties are in limbo, uncertain of their potential bargaining rights and responsibilities, and the employees are deprived of their choice, if eventually confirmed, to participate in the collective-bargaining process. Man- dating such investigations would only increase the delays and potential for abuse of the objections procedure which currently persist because the Board permits discretionary investigations of unalleged conduct. The reason for delay and abuse is easily discerned. When losing parties know that the investigation may disclose unknown misconduct which can be used to set aside the election, they are encouraged to file unsubstantiated objections in hope of such a wind- fall.27 The objecting party is thereby effectively able both to circumvent the filing deadline and to instigate a veritable fishing expedition. Accordingly, more objections are filed than evidence in elections reasonably justifies. These filings necessitate the investigation of an excessive number of groundless allegations and divert Board personnel from worthier tasks. Once engaged in a mandatory exhaustive investigation, regional staffs must consider every additional allegation, if sufficient on its face, present- ed by the losing party during the investigation.2 8 Should new evidence of objectionable conduct be revealed in any other manner, the investigation is also prolonged as the truth and adequacy of the evidence is examined. These additional investigations of conduct which was not specifically alleged in the original objections may involve otherwise unneces- sary hearings, as will be the case in the present proceeding. One particularly anomalous situation that now occurs, and predictably would occur more often if open-ended investigations were uniformly required, is that postelection proceedings drag on for up to a evidence promptly upon request from the Regional Director would adequately protect against encouragement of filing unfounded objections that would delay certification. Atlantic Mills Servicing Corporation of Cleveland, Inc., 120 NLRB 1284 (1958). 1 emphasize, however, that the safeguards perceived by the Atlantic Mills majority are illusory, since the Regional Director is not required to investigate only misconduct identified by the objections or to request supporting evidence from the objecting party with respect to all possible objectionable conduct. An initial timely filed specific objection, made without knowledge of its truth, suffices to open the door to a potentially protracted investigation. 2s First Health Care Corporation d/b/a Hanford House Health Care, supra. In many if not most cases, the additional "evidence" of objectionable conduct does in fact arise not as a product of the investigation by Board personnel, but in the form of additional, usually unfounded, allegations presented by the losing party to keep the investigation alive. 508 DAYTON TIRE & RUBBER CO. year, at which time, under the Act, a union that has lost the election can file a petition for a new election. Even if they occur only rarely, such prolonged delays make a mockery of the election process, discourage the participating parties, and frustrate the purposes of the Act. IV By espousing limitation of the scope of postelection investigations, I have in mind that, as the Board has said before, our election proceedings are essentially an administrative rather than a quasi-judicial func- tion, and that there are factors in addition to the interest of the immediate parties which must be considered. 29 These factors have to do with the Board's ability to perform promptly and adequately the matters with which it is entrusted for the purpose, among other things, of protecting the rights of all employees guaranteed by the Act. Rather than forsaking this protective purpose, my opinion herein represents the same fundamental concern for protec- tion of those involved in the electoral process which was recently voiced in Shopping Kart Food Market, Inc., 228 NLRB 1311 (1977). In overruling the Board's Hollywood Ceramics rule on campaign misre- presentation, we stated that we would not have done so if we believed that employees needed the putative protection accorded by that rule.3 0 We determined, however, "that on balance the Hollywood Ceramics rule operates more to frustrate free choice than to further it and that the purposes of the Act would be better served by its demise."3 1 I am of the same opinion with respect to the protective utility of Board law permitting a Regional Director to investigate conduct not alleged to be objectionable. In the performance of the administrative function of conducting and supervising representation elec- tions, we have often set fairly rigid limits on the scope of our proceedings, not only as to the time within which a party must take certain actions, but also with respect to the period within which the alleged objectionable conduct must have occurred,3 2 and with respect to the matters that may be litigated in representation proceedings.3 3 We have therefore not regarded a representation proceeding as a forum in which to discover and litigate every shred of evidence that, in a fully adversary proceeding, might theoretically be persuasive in determining the issues that arise. In light of the limited scope the Board has given to representation proceedings, it does not seem to me 29 Modine Manufacturing Company, 203 NLRB 527,. 529-530 (1973). 30 228 NLRB at 1313. 31 Id. 32 The Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275 (1961). unreasonable to expect those parties who have cause to object to conduct affecting the results of an election to state the nature of any conduct on which they rely within the time fixed for the filing of objections. At the least, when objectionable activity occurs during the election itself, a party will have 5 working days after the election to discover and allege it. Such activity is usually highly visible and easily discovered. In all other instances the conduct relied on in objections will have taken place during the "critical period" when adversary parties are highly sensitive to any acts which could possibly be the basis for an objection. If no objectionable conduct is discerned under these conditions within the time allotted for its discovery, I think it is unlikely that any misconduct affected the results of the election. It would therefore be both in the interests of orderly administration of the Act and in effectuation of the truly necessary protections given persons under the Act that no objections be filed. A fair and effective way to achieve this end would be to limit the investigation and litigation of objections, under ordinary circumstances, to matters specifically al-' leged in a timely filed statement from the objecting party. It is time for us to conform our internal practices to our own current Rules and to the purposes of the Act itself by requiring that, barring exceptional circum- stances, we shall only consider objectionable conduct which has been specifically and timely alleged as such. The kinds of exceptional circumstances I foresee are those wherein the investigation of the alleged objectionable conduct discloses an unalleged flagrant abuse of the Board's processes or miscon- duct by a Board agent in handling the election procedures. I deem the preservation of such excep- tions to be appropriate and sufficient to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the Board's processes and the neutrality of its agents.3 4 Accordingly, I concur herein in the pro forma adoption of the Acting Regional Director's recom- mendation that the specific objections alleged by Petitioner be overruled. I dissent from the direction of a hearing on issues raised by Petitioner's Objec- tion 9, since the information on which the Acting Regional Director relied in recommending a hearing did not come to his attention in the course of his 33 See, e.g., Paragon Products Corporation, 134 NLRB 662, 665 (1961); Dale's Super Valu, Inc., 181 NLRB 698 (1970). 34 See Athbro Precision Engineering Corp., 166 NLRB 966 (1967); Dornback Furnace & Foundry Company, 115 NLRB 350(1956). 509 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD investigation of conduct specifically and timely alleged to be objectionable. There is no justification in this case for using the unalleged conduct as a basis for directing an evidentiary hearing or overturning the election results. The Board should therefore certify the results of the election. 510