Mid-Con Cables, Inc.

720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mid-Con Cables, Inc. and District No. 174, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 17-RC- 9075 June 18, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING The National Labor Relations Board has consid- ered objections to an election held August 29, 1980,1 and the Hearing Officer's Report recom- mending disposition of same. The Board has re- viewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations, 2 as modified below. The Employer has excepted to the Hearing Offi- cer's refusal to permit it to cross-examine the Peti- tioner's witness, Diana Green. We find merit in the Employer's contention. The Petitioner called and questioned employee Green. Green testified regarding her activities as an in-plant organizing team member, her attendance at a meeting at the union hall, her knowledge as to any flat tires on employee cars, and her knowledge as to whether union members had bought or of- fered to buy meals for employees. Green testified at the end of the day's hearing. After eliciting the aforenoted testimony, the Petitioner's counsel stated, "We will have to recall her tomorrow." Thereupon, the Employer's counsel stated, "I will reserve my cross-examination for tomorrow." On the following day, the Petitioner's counsel decided not to recall Green. At that point, the Em- ployer's counsel requested an opportunity to cross- examine Green. 3 The Hearing Officer, apparently concluding that the Employer's counsel intended to question Green on matters going beyond the scope of direct examination, would not permit Green to resume her testimony. The Hearing Officer further rejected the Employer's request to call Green as its own witness. In regard to representation hearings, the Board's Rules provide that all parties have a right to call, examine, and cross-examine witness. 4 We agree I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica- tion Upon Consent Election. The tally was: 78 for, and 59 against, the Petitioner; there were 2 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results. 2 In light of our decision that a remand is necessary in this case, we shall not pass at this time on the Hearing Officer's findings and reconm- mendations regarding the objections to the election. 3 We reject the Petitioner's contention that the Emplioyer waised its right to cross-examine Green. Under the abohe-noled circurnstances, the Employer's counsel could properly rescrse cross-examination based n the Petitioner's representation that (Green would he recalled 4 Sec 102.66(a) of the National l.abor Relatiotns Board Rules and Reg- ulations. Series 8, as amended, is as follows 256 NLRB No. 120 with the Employer that it had a right to cross-ex- amine Green. In presiding over a hearing, a hearing officer has an obligation to inquire fully into matters in issue and to obtain a full and complete record. Certainly, in fulfilling his or her obligations, a hearing officer must also endeavor to preclude the introduction of irrelevant or immaterial evidence. A hearing officer should prevent "fishing expeditions" or other im- proper examination by the parties. However, where a witness has testified on direct examination, a hearing officer cannot, consistent with the rights of the parties, preclude any and all cross-examination of that witness. It is not within the discretion of a hearing officer to decide, prior to any cross-exami- nation, that such cross-examination of a witness will elicit cumulative or irrelevant evidence or be otherwise improper. In this case, the Hearing Officer should have permitted the Employer an opportunity to cross-ex- amine Green. If, thereafter, and in accord with the apparent expectations of the Hearing Officer, the Employer engaged in any improper questioning, objections to that questioning would be properly sustained. However, the Hearing Officer was pre- mature and in error in denying the Employer any opportunity whatsoever either to cross-examine Green or to call Green as its own witness. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand this case for further proceedings consist- ent herewith. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the hearing in this pro- ceeding be, and it hereby is, reopened for the limit- ed purpose of permitting the Employer an opportu- nity to cross-examine, or to call as its own witness, employee Diana Green. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Direc- tor for Region 17 for the purpose of conducting such further hearing and issuing a supplemental report thereon, and that the Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof to all parties. Any parts shall have the right to appear at any hearing in person, by counsel, r by other representative, and any part) and the hear- irg officer shall hase power to call, examine, and cross-examine wit- nlesses and to introduce into the record documentary and other evi- dence. Witinesses shall he examined orall> under oath The rules of Cvidence prevailing irl courts of law or equity shall not be control- ling StipulatiolTs oIf fact ay he itltroduced in elidence with respect ti arls issue