Vapex

168 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Electrical Rebuilders Sales, Inc., d/b/a Vernon Auto Parts Exchange, d/b/a Vapex, and District 65, International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 21-RC- 16860 15 December 1987 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE By MEMEBERS BABSON, STEPHENS, AND CRACRAFT The National Labor Relations Board, by a three- member panel, has considered objections to an election held 26 October 1981 and the Regional Di- rector's report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat- ed Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 49 for and 18 against the Petitioner, with 4 chal- lenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and brief,' has adopted the Regional i We reject as without merit the Employer's contention that the affida- vits and statements taken during the Regional Director's investigation of its objections should be forwarded to the Board Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982) As explained in Frontier, we may properly decline to engage in de novo review of underlying documents and rely on the factual representa- tions in the Regional Director's report so long as the objecting party's exceptions do not, by proffer of specific evidence, demonstrate the exist- ence of material factual issues Id at 344 In the present case, with regard to the supervisory status issue, although the Employer disputes the con- clusion that Valle's direction of work did not involve the exercise of in- dependent judgment, it does not proffer evidence in conflict with the re- ported statement by Supervisor Manuel Flores that Valle was expected simply to follow the orders of his superiors and that Flores, and not Valle, was the true decisionmaker in various supervisory tasks, such as employee discharge and discipline, in which Valle appeared to have some involvement Similarly, the Employer proffers no evidence in conflict with the Regional Director's statements of fact concerning Valle's actions in connection with the campaign and the election There being no materi- al issue of fact raised by the Employer's exceptions, it is appropriate for us to review the issues simply on the basis of the Regional Director's report Director's findings and recommendations 2 and finds that a certification of representative should be issued. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal- lots have been cast for District 65, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America, AFL- CIO, and that it is the exclusive collective-bargain- Ing representative of the employees in the follow- ing appropriate unit: All production, maintenance, shipping, receiv- ing and warehouse employees; excluding all office clerical employees, professional employ- ees, supervisors and guards as defined in the Act 2 In adopting the Regional Director's finding that employee David Valle was not a union agent, we emphasize that the present case is factu- ally distinguishable from Bio-Medical of Puerto Rico, Inc, 269 NLRB 827 (1984), and Bristol Textile Co, 277 NLRB 1637 (1986) In Bio-Medical the Board found that the evidence, when considered in tote, demonstrated that two employees were union agents within the meaning of Sec 2(12) of the Act We note, inter alia, that in Bio-Medical, unlike here, the em- ployees found to be agents traveled with union officials to a plant in the voting unit other than the one where they worked and introduced them- selves, in the presence of those officials, to the employees at the plant as the union's representatives In Bristol Textile, the Board found an employ- ee to be an agent of the union because he was, effectively, the union's presence in the plant The evidence showed that the employee was the union's only link to the unit employees, that he made weekly reports to the union about the campaign, that 'he relayed employees' questions to the union, and that the union's representative identified the alleged agent as "my contact" and testified that he was "the only one I really talked to" Although it is evident in this case that Valle was a vocal and active union supporter during the election campaign, we conclude that the total- ity of Valle's conduct here on behalf of the Union is not as substantial in degree or kind as that of the employees found to be agents in Bio-Medical and Bristol Textile Thus, we agree with the Regional Director that the facts of this case are insufficient to support a conclusion that Valle was an agent of the Union See generally NLRB v Halperin Distributing Corp. 826 F 2d 287 (4th Cir 1987) Member Cracraft did not participate in the decision in Bristol Textile Although she agrees with the finding herein that employee Valle was not Petitioner's agent and with the factors set out above which distinguish the instant case from the situation in Bristol Textile, she does not pass on whether she would have found Pirollo to be an agent of the union in Bristol Textile 287 NLRB No. 21