Flexi-Van Corp.

956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Flexi-Van Service Center, a Division of Flexi-Van Corporation and Local Union No. 560, a/w Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 22- CA-6415 and 22-RC-.6447 March 22, 1977 PROPOSED DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE1 BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Pursuant to charges filed by Local Union No. 560, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union or Local 560, on June 3, 1975, and amended on July 17, 1975, a complaint was issued on July 25,1975, alleging that Flexi-Van Service Center, a Division of Flexi-Van Corporation, herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act by discharging Joseph Badame and Daniel A. Spino on or about June 2, 1975, and Mary Farrell on or about June 13, 1975. Pursuant to the Union's petition and an agreement for consent election, an election was held on July 9, 1975. Four ballots were cast for, and two against, the Union with three challenged ballots. On July 25, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 22 issued his Report on Challenged Ballots and directed that the challenges be consolidated with the complaint for purposes of hearing, ruling, and decision by an Administrative Law Judge. Thereafter, on July 31, 1975, Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of an unfair labor practice. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Milton Janus in Newark, New Jersey, on September 4 and 10, 1975. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to present evidence, and to examine and cross-examine witness- es. Following the close of the hearing, briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent. On February 13, 1976, the Chief Administrative Law Judge informed the parties that Administrative Law Judge Janus had died on January 31, 1976, prior to the issuance of a decision, and he proposed several courses of action available for the disposition of the matter. Subsequently, the parties consented to trans- Any party ma , within 20 days from the date hereof, file with the Board in Washington, D.C., eight copies of a statement setting forth exceptions to this Proposed Decision, Order, and Certification of Representative, together with seven copies of a beef in support of said exceptions and, immediately upon such filing, serve copies thereof on each of the other parties. 2 The following recitation of facts is based on a composite of the evidence, with specific note taken of conflicts of evidence only to the extent necessary to resolve the basic issues. fer the case to the Board for issuance of a Proposed Decision and Order on the record as made. On March 8, 1976, the Board informed the parties that the proceeding had been transferred to the Board. Thereafter, on July 28, 1976, the Respondent filed a 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. The Board, having authorized the transfer of the case, and having received and considered the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General Counsel, and the entire record in this case, makes the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 2 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Flexi-Van Service Center, a Division of Flexi-Van Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the operation of a facility in Secaucus, New Jersey, for the repair and dispatch of truck containers, trailers, and chassis. During the past 12 months, a representative period, Flexi-Van received in excess of $50,000 in gross revenues for truck container, chassis, and trailer repair services provided and performed within States of the United States other than the State of New Jersey. Accordingly, we find, as alleged in the complaint and as Flexi-Van admits, that the Respon- dent is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and we find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES A. Background In mid-March 1975,3 Joseph Badame contacted a representative of Local Union No. 868, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (hereinafter referred to as Local 868), regarding the possibility of organizing Respondent's office clerical employees .4 In mid-March and early April, there were two 3 All dates herein are in 1975 unless otherwise specified. There is no collective-bargaining history among these employees. Respondent's production employees have been represented by International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, Local Nos. 1277-1 and 1804-1 (hereafter referred to as ILA). 228 NLRB No. 78 FLEXI-VAN SERVICE CENTER 957 meetings between Respondent's office personnel and John Burke, a representative of Local 868. At one of these meetings, a majority of these persons signed union authorization cards. Among those present at this meeting was Rocco Fiore, who Respondent admits is a supervisor. On April 14, Joseph Badame accompanied Burke to Respondent's corporate offic- es in New York, where they met with one of the vice presidents, Douglas Rogers. Burke requested recogni- tion of Local 868 as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of Respondent's clerical employees and presented the union authorization cards signed by all persons in the requested unit as proof of Local 868's majority status. Rogers carefully perused the cards and pulled those signed by Rocco Fiore, Daniel Spino, and Badame and advised that they were ineligible because they were supervisors. Mary Far- rell's card was among those shown to Rogers. Rogers then advised Burke and Badame that it was the Respondent's policy to use the processes of the National Labor Relations Board in such matters. Subsequently, Local 868 filed a representation peti- tion at the Board's Regional Office in Brooklyn, but it was withdrawn when Local 868 turned the campaign over to Local 560. Shortly thereafter, Badame was contacted by a representative of Local 560, Robert Luizzi. On or about May 25, Badame met with Luizzi who gave him union authorization cards for Local 560. On that same date, a majority of Respondent's office personnel signed authorization cards for Local 560 at a meeting called by Badame. Mary Farrell was not present at this meeting but signed an authorization card on or about May 27, the following Tuesday. On that date, Luizzi met with Badame at the plant where Badame turned the union cards over to him and introduced him to Thomas Kilkenny, manager of the Service Center. Later that afternoon, after Kilkenny refused to recognize Local 560, Luizzi telephoned Badame to inform him that the employees in the requested unit were to strike the next day. On May 28, the office personnel went on strike. The strike continued until May 30. All of the clericals participat- ed, as well as Bodame, Spino, and Farrell. The strikers returned to work on June 2. About 8 a.m. Kilkenny called Badame into his office and told him his services were no longer required. Spino did not report to work that day, but he was told the same thing when he called in to explain his absence. Respondent admitted that Badame and Spino were 5 The evidence adduced by the General Counsel as to this point is confused and inconclusive . Thus, Badame testified that at a meeting in December or January he and Spino were told that "anything in the past does not exist" and that everything had to be cleared by Kilkenny or Flynn. At a later meeting in February, he and Spmo were told that all parts orders and disciplinary actions had to be cleared through Kilkenny or Flynn. Spin's testimony relative to these meetings was that in January Flynn and Kilkenny discharged because of their activities on behalf of the Union which were said to be in violation of their management responsibilities. Farrell was discharged approximately 2 weeks later (June 13), assertedly because she refused to transfer to the New York office when her department, the credit office, was relocated there. B. Badame's Status Joseph Badame was hired on October 31, 1974, as a supervisor by the then general manager, Jim Demoni- co, and the then terminal manager, Bob Lotz, at a salary of $240 per week. His responsibility at that time was the overall supervision of the shop opera- tion, including preparing and approving work orders for repairs and parts and assigning the men to various jobs in the shop and occasionally outside the facility. He also had the authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees although he never fired or hired anyone. The General Counsel does not contest Badame's supervisory status prior to January 1975. At or about that time, there was a change of management at the Service Center, with Thomas Kilkenny and John Flynn replacing Demonico and Lotz; this change was apparently occasioned by headquarters' dissatisfac- tion with the Service Center's operation. There was a series of meetings between Kilkenny and Flynn and various supervisors, attended by Badame and Spino, where the supervisors were admonished for poor production, excessive overtime, etc. Neither Badame nor Joseph Spino was expressly notified of a change in his status, job title, identification card, wage rate, or job duties .5 They continued to be salaried, were not paid overtime, and were not required to punch a timecloek. Certain privileges, however, such as the use of the company car and a promised wage increase, were withdrawn. Also, Kilkenny and Flynn did gradually assume a more active role in the operation of the plant than had Demonico and Lotz, including the hiring and firing of employees, the granting and approval of overtime hours, the approv- al of repair estimates, and the right of final approval of completed work orders. Uncontroverted evidence, in large part the testimo- ny of Badame, establishes that after the change in management Badame's duties consisted of the daily assignment of duties to the mechanics either directly or through the working foremen. Badame testified that he gave work orders to the working foremen, told him and Badame that "all deals were oft, whatever anybody was promised, forget it." Kilkenny and Flynn refused to answer Spino's questions as to what his exact status and responsibilities would be. Later, at a meeting in February, Kilkenny and Flynn told him and Badame that as of the date of the meeting Kilkenny would be in charge of the Service Center's administra- tion and Flynn would handle the shop operation. 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD members of the ILA unit, who had primary responsi- bility for assigning duties to the shop employees, and that he made direct assignments only when the working foremen were absent or busy. However, Badame testified that the working foremen reported to him the deployment of the shop employees.6 Kilkenny and Lionel Cruz, one of the working foremen, testified that, up until the time of his discharge, Badame determined and told the working foremen which repairs were to be given priority and transferred shop employees from one assignment to another in accordance with those priorities. Further, Cruz testified that at the end of the day, Badame reviewed timesheets prepared by the working fore- men indicating the time shop mechanics spent on particular repairs. Badame also was responsible for making and reviewing repair estimates; the inspec- tion and approval of completed work with the quality control man, also a member of the unit represented by the ILA; making sure that the shop mechanics had the necessary equipment and parts; and ensuring that the mechanics efficiently performed their duties. He was responsible for warning the mechanics of infrac- tions of work rules and informed Kilkenny and Flynn of such violations. He also had the authority to direct shop employees to repeat or complete repairs he found unsatisfactory. There is documentary evidence that Badame signed and placed formal notices of disciplinary warnings or action in employees' person- nel files. Badame also signed other personnel forms as manager or supervisor, including wage increase forms, and he continued to attend supervisory meetings. Pursuant to an informal agreement between Re- spondent and the ILA, managers were not allowed on the shop floor to give orders directly to the shop employees. Kilkenny and Cruz uncontrovertedly testified that the working foremen did not have the authority to reprimand shop employees for being slow or for poor production. Thus, Badame was the only person to whom the 40 shop employees looked for orders and directions from management. Finally, the shop employees were never apprised of any change in Badame's status. 6 Badame's testimony as to certain issues is somewhat self-contradictory. For example, at one point he testified that one of his duties was cleaning and sweeping the shop area. He later testified that his directive from Flynn was to see to it that the shop area was cleaned. Also, he testified that after the change in management he was required to wear a company-supplied uniform of a white shirt and blue pants (the shop employees' uniform consisted of blue shirt and pants). He later testified that he was told "you are ruining your own clothes, why don't you get uniforms," and that he was free to wear dress clothes whenever he wished . Further, Badame admitted that there was an agreement with the ILA that nonunit personnel would not perform repair functions; that no one ever objected to his performing unit work ; and that he C. Spino's Status Daniel A. Spino began employment at the Service Center in April 1973 as a "service coordinator" at a salary of $275 per week. His salary was increased to $300 per week approximately 1 year later. In mid- 1974 he was promoted to service manager and put in charge of the plant. There is no question but that prior to January 1975 Spino was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. At or about that time, Kilkenny and Flynn replaced the previous general and terminal managers of the Service Center. As noted above, Kilkenny and Flynn assumed a more active role in the day-to-day operation of the Service Center than had the previous managers. However, they did not change Spino's rate of compensation 7 or title. The use of a company car was withdrawn sometime in March.8 Spino was still entitled to use, free of charge, the company gasoline pump as late as May 27, whereas the estimator who regularly inspect- ed equipment off the premises was not, being paid 15 cents per mile instead. Spino continued to have customer account responsibilities and made use of an expense account until March, when he was repri- manded for taking U.S. Customs Service employees to lunch. There is no indication that Spino was ever told he no longer had an expense account. After the change in management, Spino's duties consisted of inspecting equipment and estimating repairs; writing repair work orders; reviewing speed letters which were requests from headquarters for containers and chassis; telling the yard supervisor which equipment to pull from storage for repairs and pulling work orders for the shop employees in accordance with the speed letters. Spino reviewed the speed letters with the working foremen at the end of the day to determine which repairs were to be done by the night crew. Work orders for completed repairs were turned in to Spino and he reviewed and initialed them. Prior to February, Spino checked the work orders to verify what mechanics had worked on the equipment and the reasonableness of the man-hours and parts used before the account was sent to customer billing. Sometime in February, Flynn assumed the authority of final approval of the work orders because of concern about excessive overtime, for which Spino (and Badame) were admonished and never made written reports ofhaving done such work. Kilkenny testified that he never received direct complaints about or observed Badame performing unit work although Flynn reported to him that there was a complaint that Badame had picked up a broom. In light of the above, as well as its logical implausibility, Badame's testimony that he performed repair duties for an average of 3 hours per day is not credited . But even if he did, it would not affect our conclusion herein. r Spmo and Badame both received higher salaries than the working foremen. 8 Kilkenny testified that Spino's company car was taken away in April or early May. FLEXI-VAN SERVICE CENTER 959 told to keep a tighter rein on the mechanics. How- ever, Spino continued to review and initial the work orders and he was held accountable if Flynn's review pointed out excessive man-hours .9 Spino continued to attend supervisory meetings. He signed as a "service manager" a posted notice of employees being laid off, although he did not participate in the decision to lay off employees. He signed, as supervisor or manager, wage increase personnel file forms and outside correspondence. Only the yard supervisor, Pat Young, and Spino were authorized to sign overtime write-ins on employee timecards. (Badame was authorized to sign the timecards in Spino's absence.) Kilkenny testified that Spino was consulted about wage increases and other personnel actions and that Spino and Badame had the authority to grant time off to shop employees. D. Farrell's Termination 'O Mary Farrell was hired by Respondent on January 26, 1975, as an accounts receivable clerk in the credit office, under Rocco Fiore, an admitted supervisor. In mid-March and April, she attended a couple of union organizational meetings and signed an authorization card for Local 868. Rocco Fiore also attended these meetings and even signed a union card, which he later asked Farrell to retrieve. On or about May 27, Farrell signed a union authorization card for Local 560. She also participated in the strike and picketing on May 28 to May 30 and was seen engaging in such activity by her supervisors. On or about May 22, Farrell was notified that Respondent's credit office would be relocated in New York City as of June 1 and that she could retain her position if she transferred. The next day, Farrell asked her supervisor, Fiore, if she would receive compensation for the increased expenses she would incur by commuting to New York. Fiore told her he assumed she would because he had received compen- sation when he transferred from the New York office to New Jersey. When Farrell returned to work after the strike, Fiore asked her if she had reached a decision about transferring to New York. Farrell responded that it was her understanding that no transfers were to be implemented until the union representation matter was resolved. The following day, May 25, Fiore told her that she would not receive any additional compensation. When she complained, Fiore said: "What can I tell you, sweetheart, the handwriting is on the wall." Fiore did 9 Spino's testimony in this regard is at times evasive and contrary to other evidence, some of it documentary. For example, at one point he testified that subsequent to February he did nothing with the work orders when they were placed on his desk other than turn them over to Flynn. He later testified that he did not have the authority to either approve or initial the completed work not receive compensation for the move either. How- ever, he had received a wage increase immediately prior to the decision to relocate the credit office. There were no other employees in the department. On June 6, after a conversation with Jack Womack, Respondent's controller, Fiore informed Farrell that he was to report to the New York office the following Monday morning, June 9. Fiore also told Farrell that Womack had told him to get rid of her, that clerks are a dime a dozen, and that the Company could get one in New York for $125 per week. On June 10, Kilkenny told Farrell he needed her answer as to whether she was willing to transfer to New York. Farrell responded that she would transfer if she got some kind of compensation for her increased expens- es. Later that day, she was called into the office and given a letter (dated June 9) which stated: As you are aware, we are planning on moving the Credit and Collection function of the Service Center to our office in New York In the event that this becomes a reality and you are offered the opportunity of moving to New York with the operations, please indicate whether you would or would not be willing to move to New York by signing this letter on the appropriate line below and returning the original to me. In the event you are reassigned to our New York office, your pay will remain unchanged. Farrell refused to sign the letter. Kilkenny then told her that she was a good worker and that she could use him as a reference. On June 11, Kilkenny told her that her last day would be Friday, June 13. The credit office files, records, and furniture, with the exception of the work orders and invoices, were transferred to New York on June 12. On June 13, Farrell received her final paycheck. Attached thereto was a letter which stated: The credit and collection department for Flexi- Van Service Center has been moved to the New York Madison Avenue office. Mr. Womack, the manager of the corporate credit and collection dept. has extended an offer to you as far as moving with this department. With this offer he stipulated that your pay status would remain the same. Since this is not in agreement with your wishes, the position will be eliminated, and your termination will take effect today. orders. However, several work orders dated April and May 1975 were introduced into evidence bearing Spino's signature. 10 The facts pertaining to Farrell's employment and discharge are not in dispute and the following is a composite of the relevant record evidence 960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Subsequently, Farrell spoke to Fiore on the tele- phone about a job reference. He confirmed a rumor that Farrell had heard that the credit office was being moved back to the Secaucus, New Jersey, facility. Farrell testified that when she asked if the move had been an attempt to get rid of her, Fiore repeated, "What can I tell you, sweetheart, the handwriting is on the wall, read it. I told you that before." Fiore was not called as a witness. No further evidence was adduced as to Respondent's intention to move the credit office back to New Jersey. IV. FINDINGS As defined by Section 2(11) of the Act, a supervisor is "any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not merely of a routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment." Possession of any one of these enumer- ated powers establishes supervisory status, as the section is read in the disjunctive. Where the posses- sion of any one of these powers is not conclusively established, the Board looks to certain other factors as evidence of supervisory status, e.g., the individual's designation as a supervisor, attendance of superviso- ry meetings, responsibility for a shift or phase of the employer's operation, authority to grant time off to other employees, responsibility for inspecting the work of others, responsibility for reporting rule infractions and the ratio of supervisors to employ- ees.1' The General Counsel does not contest the fact that Badame and Spino were supervisors within the meaning of the Act prior to January or February 1975. However, the General Counsel contends that when Thomas Kilkenny and John Flynn replaced the previous managers of the Service Center they as- sumed complete charge of the shop and plant operations and Spino and Badame thus became rank- and-file employees. We find the evidence as to Spino's and Badame's status subsequent to February 1975 does not support the General Counsel' s asser- tion. Thus, the record establishes that Badame was responsible for the assignment of work to the shop 11 See L and A Investment Corporation of Anzona, 221 NLRB 1206, 1208 (1975); Jake Schiagel, Jr., d/b/a Aurora and East Denver Trash Disposal, 218 NLRB I (1975); Sagamore Shirt Company d/b/a Spruce Pine Manufacturing Company, 166 NLRB 437 (1%7), enfd. 401 F.2d 925 (C.A.D.C., 1%8). 12 See Asheville Steel Company, 202 NLRB 146,147 ( 1973), enfd. 487 F.2d 1398 (C.A. 4, 1973), Howard Johnson Company, 201 NLRB 376 (1973). 13 See Stephens Produce Co, Inc. and Temple Stephens Company, 214 employees; for enforcing Respondent's work rules, which entailed taking part in the formal reprimand of employees; and for the satisfactory and efficient completion of repairs, with the authority to order shop employees to correct defective repairs. Further, Badame engaged in little, if any, production work; attended supervisory meetings ; and signed employ- ees' timecards for overtime. Badame was held out to be a supervisor and was the only management representative to whom the shop employees reported for work assignments and directions.12 In this regard, it is highly significant that there is no evidence that the Respondent ever announced to the shop employ- ees that Badame was no longer their supervisor.13 On the basis of the above, we conclude that Badame had the authority responsibly to direct the shop employees in the performance of their duties and was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act at all times material herein. For essentially the same reasons, we find that Daniel Spino was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Thus, Spino was clearly a supervisor prior to January 1975, and at no time subsequently were employees informed that his supervisory authority had been withdrawn. He continued to sign significant personnel records, e.g., wage increases and important employee notices, including a notice of layoffs, completed work orders, and parts orders, as the manager of the Service Center. He continued to be responsible for the smooth and efficient operation of the Service Center by verifying the number of man- hours spent on repair jobs and the need for parts. He also attended supervisory meetings, signed overtime write-ins on timecards, and transmitted speed letters, which indicated the repairs to be made, to the shop foremen. He was also consulted regarding personnel actions, e.g., wage increases. On the basis of the above, we conclude that Daniel Spino was a supervi- sor at the time of his discharge. It is well established that a supervisor is not entitled to the protection of the Act and may be discharged for any reason, including union activity, absent circumstances not present here.14 Accordingly, as we have found that Spino and Badame were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act at the time of their discharg- es, complaint allegations pertaining to Spino and Badame shall be dismissed. As to Farrell, the evidence indicates that she was a satisfactory employee and that Respondent was NLRB 131, 133 (1974), enfd. 515 F.2d 1373 (C.A 8,1975); see also Aurora and East Denver Trash Disposal, supra at 11. 14 Manual San Juan Company, Inc., Commonwealth Insurance Company and United Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 211 NLRB 812 (1974); Farm Stores, Inc., F.S. #2, Inc, and F.S. #4, Inc., Division of Farm Stores, Inc., l31 NLRB 1068(1961) FLEXI-VAN SERVICE CENTER 961 predisposed to retain her services at its New York office. Although the General Counsel contends that the Respondent may have been unlawfully motiva- ted, there is insufficient evidence that the removal of the credit office to New York City was not a bona fide economic decision or that it was related to Farrell's union activities. Moreover, her union activi- ties were limited when compared to those of other unit employees who engaged therein more consistent- ly and energetically without suffering any reprisals.15 Accordingly, although Fiore's statements to her concerning the "handwriting on the wall" could be interpreted as referring to her union activities and thus could be independent violations of Section 8(a)(1),16 they were not so alleged and they are insufficient to support the General Counsel's conten- tion that she was discharged for unlawful reasons. And, although the rumored return of the credit office to Secaucus is a suspicious circumstance, this evi- dence does not warrant a conclusion that the move was not economically motivated. We therefore find that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof that the relocation of the credit office was a pretext for discharging Farrell because of her union activities. In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety and make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Flexi-Van Service Center, a Divi- sion of Flexi-Van Corporation, is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local Union No. 560, a/w International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent did not, by its conduct, violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged in the 15 See Abitibi Corporation, 198 NLRB 1249, 1257 (1972). i6 See W,x Corporation, 227 NLRB No. 31 (1976); White Pine, Inc., 213 NLRB 566 (1974); General Fireproofing Company, 178 NLRB 130 (1969). 17 We find that the fact that Joseph Badame and Daniel Spmo, found herein to be supervisors, solicited union authorization cards and otherwise participated in the union organizing campaign did not consitute interference which would warrant setting aside the election. The Board requires that there be a reasonable basis for believing that fear of supervisory retaliation destroyed the employees' freedom of choice in the election before the Board will set aside an election on that basis . Here, both Spino and Badame's authority over the employees in the unit involved was at best limited and their opportunities for affecting the employment status of those employees were minimal And, as Spino and Badame were discharged complaint, and Respondent did not, in any manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Challenged Ballots As we have found that they were not unlawfully discharged, we hereby sustain the challenges to the ballots of Joseph Badame, Daniel Spino, and Mary Farrell. We, therefore, find that Petitioner has re- ceived a majority of the valid votes cast and we shall certify the Petitioner as the representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.17 ORDER 18 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for Local Union No. 560, a/w 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 organiza- tion is the exclusive representative of all the employ- ees in the following appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: All office clerical employees, including TIR clerks, employed by Flexi-Van Service Center, a Division of Flexi-Van Corporation, at its location in Secaucus, New Jersey, but excluding all profes- sional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. prior to the election, no indication or inference can be drawn that employees supported the union out of fear of retaliation by union-oriented supervisors. Rather, the Employer, by discharging Badame and Spino for their participa- tion in the organization campaign, made clear its opposition to unionization. Therefore, the employees were in no way misled into believing that Badame and Spino were acting on behalf of the Employer Turner's Express, Incorporated 189 NLRB 106 (1971). Is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and proposed Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.