Craftmatic Comfort Mfg. Corp.

514 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Craftmatic Comfort Mfg. Corp. and Teamsters Local Union No. 574, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 14-RC-10886 August 21, 1990 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND OVIATT The National Labor Relations Board, by a three- member panel, has considered objections to an election held February 1, 1990, 1 and the hearing officer's report recommending disposition of them The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat- ed Election Agreement The tally of ballots shows 55 for and 53 against the Petitioner, with 1 nonde- terminative challenged ballot The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, has adopted the hearing officer's fmdmgs 2 and recommendations 2 as modi- fied, and finds that a certification of representative should be issued We agree with the hearing officer's conclusion that the Employer's objections to the election were timely filed and that, when considered on their merits, do not warrant setting aside the election We disagree, however, with his recommendation All dates are 1990 unless otherwise indicated 2 The Employer has excepted to some of the hearing officer's credibil- ity findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule a hearing officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are mcorrect Stretch-Tex Co, 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957) We find no basis for reversing the findings The Employer has excepted to the hearing officer's consideration of the subjective reaction of employees in his evaluation of the merits of some of the Employer's objections We do not rely on the subjective re- action of employees in agreemg with the hearing officer that there is no basis on which to set aside the election The Employer has excepted to the hearing officer's finding that the conduct listed under "other acts and conduct not specifically alleged" was an attempt to file untimely objections The Employer argues that the evidence offered at the hearmg was related to timely filed objections per- taining to threats The only "other acts" conduct that could arguably be related to timely filed objections are alleged threats against John Cun- ningham and Susan Rinehart Assuming arguendo that these allegations are related to threats encompassed in the timely filed objections, we find that the evidence, even if credited, falls to establish a basis for setting aside the election Uncontroverted testimony established that Terry Cun- ningham and his brother, John, did not have a good personal relationship, and the Employer failed to show that alleged threats by Terry regarding John were related to union activity Similarly, we find that neither an anonymous phone call to Susan Rinehart inquiring about her union senti- ments, nor a statement by union supporters overheard by Rinehart indi- cating that employees who did not vote for the Union would not be elected as union representatives, constituted threats creating an atmos- phere of fear and coercion and warranting setting aside the election 3 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the hearing offi- cer's recommendation that Objections 11 and 12 be overruled that the evidence submitted in support of the Em- ployer's objections be found untimely 4 The election was held February 1, 1990, and the tally of ballots was made available to the parties at the conclusion of the election Under Section 102 69(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, ob- jections to the election were due in the Regional Office on February 8, 7 days after the preparation of the tally of ballots The Employer timely filed its objections to the election February 7 On Febru- ary 14, the Employer sent by Federal Express a package containing the evidence in support of its objections That evidence was received in the Re- gional Office on February 15 The hearing officer concluded that the evidence in support of the objections was untimely because he found that the evidence was due February 14, 7 days after the objections were received by the Re- gional Office The Employer excepts, arguing that the evidence was not due until February 15 We agree with the Employer Section 102 69(a) of the Board's Rules and Regu- lations provides that the party filing objections shall furnish supporting evidence "[w]ithm 7 days after the filing of objections" Section 102 112 of the Board's Rules and Regulations defmes the date of filing as "the day when the matter is required to be received by the Board " We interpret these rules to mean that because the objections were not actually due until February 8, the evidence in sup- port of the objections was not due until February 15 and thus was timely when received on that date Not only does this interpretation give meaning to Section 102 112, but it also is in accordance with the intent of the September 29, 1986 revisions to the Board's Rules and Regulations These revisions, along with an explanatory statement, were pub- lished in the Federal Register on July 1, 1986 5 The explanatory statement indicated that "[t]he new time periods for responding to Board action have been established as 7 days, or some multiple of that period, from the date of Board action, thereby avoidmg the occurrence of any filing date on a Saturday or Sunday "6 The "Board action" in this case was the preparation of the tally of ballots Under our reading of Section 102 69(a), objections were due 7 days after the tally, and supporting evi- dence was due 14 days after the tally Furthermore, our interpretation is consistent with other sections of the Board's Rules and Regu- lations that calculate the time for filing answering 4 Although the hearing officer recommended finding that the evidence submitted in support of the objections was not timely, he nevertheless considered the objections on their merits 51 Fed Reg 23744 (1986) Ibid 299 NLRB No 71 CRAFTMATIC COMFORT MFG CORP 515 bnefs, cross-exceptions, and oppositions to requests for review from the last date on which the docu- ment to which they are responding may be filed 7 Finally, we note that holding otherwise would en- courage parties to delay filing their objections until the final date possible, would negate predictability of time requirements, and would necessitate con- stant verification of the date the objections were actually received in the Regional Office Accordingly, we hold that evidence in support of objections is due 7 days from the date the objec- tions are required to be filed Based on our inter- pretation of the Rules, we find the evidence in this case was timely filed 7 See Secs 102 46(dX1), 102 46(e), 102 67(e), and 102 69(e) CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE IT IS CERTIFIED that a majonty of the valid bal- lots have been cast for Teamsters Local Union No 574, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amenca, AFL-CIO, and that it is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the following appropriate unit All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Parma, MB- soun facility, EXCLUDING office clencal and professional employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act