Amalgamated Industrial Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 727 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

AMALGAMATED INDUSTRIAL. UtNION
Amalgamated Industrial Union, Local 76B and its Di-
visions, Local 92-Local 76, U.F.W.A., AFL-CIO
and University of New Haven
University of New Haven and Amalgamated Industrial
Union, Local 76B and its Divisions, Local 92-Local
76, U.F.W.A., AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases I-CB
4167 and 1-RC--15653
December 4, 1979
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENElIl.O
On August 13, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Bruce C. Nasdor issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party Employer
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
' The Charging Party Employer has excepted to certain credibility findings
made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy
not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard DnO Wall Produciv,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The Charging Party Employer excepted, inter alia, to the Administrative
Law Judge's dismissal of Objections 9 and 10 which alleged misconduct by
the Petitioner's observer. Ivan Cordero. In dismissing these objections the
Administrative Law Judge found that Cordero spoke to employees in Span-
ish, but that the Employer's observer, Majone Deobil, did not know what he
said. The Charging Party Employer correctly points out, however, that the
Administrative Law Judge found and the record shows that Deobil asked
Cordero to translate into English what he said to the employees. and that
Cordero told Deobil that he was urging the employees to come in and vote
Deobil further testified that on two separate occasions an employee asked
Cordero if another employee had voted yet, and that Cordero responded.
"No." Cordero's testimony was essentially similar to Deobil's but he said
that only one employee asked him if another employee had voted.
We do not condone such conduct by an election observer. However. we
have held that conduct similar to Cordero's invitation to employees to come
in and vote does not constitute electioneering. See South Pacific Furniture,
Inc., 241 NLRB 488 (1979), citing General Shoe Corporation. 77 NLRB 124
(1948). and Milchern, Inc. 170 NLRB 362 (1968) As to Cordero's giving out
information on who had not voted, we note that he responded only when
asked a direct question. There was no evidence that Cordero volunteered the
information or actively kept a list of voters. In sum, we find no merit in the
Employer's contention that Cordero's conduct violated Milchern, Inc, 170
NLRB 362 (1968). See also Centurv City Hospital, 219 NLRB 52 (19751
Member Peneilo agrees with the Administrative Law Judge that Employ-
er's Objection 29 should be overruled, but Member Penello relies on his
dissenting opinion in Dayton Tire Rubber Co., 234 NLRB 504 (1978).
wherein he stated that he would not set an election aside on the basis of
conduct not specifically alleged in a timely filed wntten objection,
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of' the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed
in its entirety.
IT IS I URRIIER ORDERED that the objections in (Case
-RC' 15653 be, and they hereby are, overruled.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Amalgamated Industrial
Union, Local 76B3 and its Divisions, Local 92 Local
76, U.F.W.A., AFL-CIO, and that, pursuant to Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act, the foregoing labor organization
is the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the following appropriate unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance
employees employed by the Employer at its
West Htaven, Connecticut, location: but exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
The election was conducted on May 12. 1978. pursuant to a Stipulation
for Certification Upon Consent Election I he tally was 22 or and 15 against
the Petitioner: there were 3 challenged ballots, n insuffcient number to
affect the results.
DECISION
SlAI-MEN[ O- IF (CASE
BRU(E C. NAS)DOR. Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard at New Haven, Connecticut, on October 25 and
26, 1978.' The charge was filed by the University of New
Haven (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the Employer)
on June 7, 1978. A Report on Objections issued b the
Regional Director for Region I on July 13. 1978. resulted in
the issuance of an order consolidating cases and complaint
and notice of hearing on July 18, 1978. The Report on Ob-
jections relates to an election conducted on May 12, 1978.
as the result of the Union's petition filed on March 22,
1978. On May 17. the Employer filed timely objections to
conduct of election and conduct affecting results of the elec-
tion. The Regional Director's Report on Objections is in
evidence as the General Counsel's Exhibit (a). The objec-
tions allege 282 separate occurrences. The Regional Direc-
tor approved the withdrawal of Objections 12. 18. and 15.
The complaint alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act by
conduct which is identical to the conduct alleged in Objec-
I All dates are in 1978 unless otherwise specified.
I Objection 29 is a catchall objection
246 NLRB No. 124
727
DIt(FISI()NS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
tions 1, 2, 3. and 5. With regard to Objections 4 29, the
Regional Director concluded that they involved material
issues of fact and issues of credibility which could appropri-
ately be resolved at a hearing before an administrative law
judge.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witness, and after due consideration of the
briefs, I make the following:
FINI)IN(GS O: FA(I
I. JtRISI)I('II()N
The Employer is engaged at West Haven, county of New
Haven, State of Connecticut, in the operation of a private
coeducational institution of higher learning. The Employer,
in the course and conduct of its business, annually receives
revenues which it is free to use to defray operating expenses
in excess of $1 million, and at least $50,000 of such rev-
enues are received from points located outside the State of
Connecticut. In the course and conduct of its business, the
Employer annually purchases goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the
State of Connecticut. The Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
11. Itli LABOR OR(IANIZATION INVOI.VEI)
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
Ill. 111 I' VII)I:N(I
What follows is a summary of the relevant testimony ad-
duced from witnesses called by counsel for the General
Counsel, counsel for the Regional Director, and counsel for
Respondent.'
Robert Zgradden. According to Zgradden. he attended a
union meeting on the second Saturday of April 1978. Enio
Perrozzi, the union organizer, said that. if' you signed an
authorization card before the election. you would not have
to pay a $50 initiation fee, and, if you waited until after the
Union got in and won the election. you would have to pa
$50.
Hie testified further that in August 1977 he was ap-
proached by two employees and asked to sign an authoriza-
tion card for the Teamsters. According to Zgradden. that is
the time the question of an initiation fee was first brought
up, a $150 fee. The Teamsters was rejected because of this
huge amount, according to Zgradden.
Llovd Diehil. Diehl testified that he spoke with Perrozzi in
March or April 1978. in his house. Perrozzi told him that if
he did not sign a card before the election he would have to
pay $50. Furthermore, according to his testimony, 2 weeks
before the election employees Frank Coroso and Tony
Morro told him that anyone who did not sign a card would
have to pay $50. On cross-examination he qualified his di-
< Counsel for the (ieneral ('ounscl' motion to correct the transcript is
hereby gralnted.
rect examination by stating that Perrozzi and Morro told
him that, if he signed a card at that time, he would not have
to pay the $50 initiation fee after the election and after a
contract was negotiated.
.4ugu.sl )iliMarco.: DiMarzo testified that in March 1978
employee Morro asked him to sign an authorization card
and told him that if he did not sign it then he would have to
pay $50. He testified further that before the election and on
the evening after the election Morro told him that "they"
were going to make him, Morro, steward. DiMarzo told
Morro that there had to be "a vote on it." Morro agreed
that this was true. A week after the election, employees
Morrow and Coroso told him that he had to pay $50 be-
cause he did not sign a card. He testified further that Ivan
('ordero said "the same things as Tony Morro." "If' you
don't pay the $50, you have to pay it after." DiMarzo testi-
fied that he never heard that Morro or Cordero was being
paid by the Union for organizing or that they had any offi-
cial position with the Union.
Marjorie Deobil Deobil, an accountant in the Universi-
ty's business office, was the Employer's observer at the elec-
tion. The election was held in the maintenancemen's lunch-
room in the basement of the Employer's main building. The
actual balloting took place in a storage room or closet. The
polls were to be opened at 8 until 9 a.m. and reopened from
3 to 5 p.m.
Deobil testified that she saw Perrozzi talking to five or six
employees at 8 a.m. but could not hear what he was saying.
A few minutes before the polls opened at 8 a.m. the Board
agent asked Perrozzi if he was going to come back after the
polls closed. Perrozzi responded, "Do you want me to?"
and the agent stated, "Yes, if you want to." The Board
agent did not ask this of any of the Employer's representa-
tives. According to the testimony, the Board agent talked to
Perrozzi in a friendly manner and smiled at him and
seemed to be cold and brisk towards employer representa-
tives. During the afternoon session Deobil said "Hello" to
the Board agent, and the Board agent said "Hello" to her
"quickly."
Deobil testified further that a few minutes after 9 a.m.
she asked the Board agent if the polls were to close at 9
o'clock, and the agent responded "yes." At the beginning of
the morning session, the union observer asked if he should
vote at the beginning or end of the session. and the Board
agent said that it did not make any difference. The union
observer voted prior to the end of the session.
('ordero was the Union's observer, and he spoke to other
employees in Spanish. The witness does not know what he
was saying to them.
During the first session an employee, Rossi, asked Corde-
ro if employee Bob Screg had voted. Cordero responded
negatively.
While the voting was in progress two female employees
allegedly entered the voting area with pocketbooks, and a
male employee carried a brown paper bag. During the last
20 minutes of the morning session, according to Deobil's
testimony. the Board agent read a magazine and did not
face the ballot box. Two people voted during this 20-minute
interlude.
Deobil testified that a minute or two after 9 a.m. she
asked the Board agent if the polls were not supposed to
728
AMALGAMATED INDUSTRIAl UNION
close at 9 o'clock. The Board agent took out a certificate'
and asked Cordero and Deobil to read it. Employee Lucius
Gattison came in to vote. Cordero told him that the polls
were closed, and Gattison asked what time they reopened.
The Board agent told the employee Gattison the polls
would reopen from 3 to 5 p.m. Gattison said he would come
back. The agent said that he might as well vote now. Gatti-
son voted at that time, finishing at 9:04 or 9:05 a.m.
During the afternoon session. Cordero allegedly called
out to employees in the hall in Spanish. Deobil testified that
she did not understand what Cordero was saying in Spanish
and asked him what he was saying. He responded that he
was urging the employees to come in and vote. Further-
more, according to this witness. the Board agent never in-
structed Cordero not to engage in such conversation.
An unnamed employee asked Cordero if Santi had voted.
Cordero checked the list and responded negatively.
After each session Deobil refused to sign the certification
of conduct. Her testimony was that she refused to sign the
certification upon advice from the Employer's attorney.
Santiago Malava: Malava testified that he was a janitor
at the University. No one asked him to vote prior to the
election. He spoke to Cordero who told him that there were
no initiation fees, just monthly dues. According to Malava,
Cordero never told him that he would have to pay an initi-
ation fee if he did not sign a card.
When he voted, he asked in English "where is the booth."
and that was the sole thing he said.
Antonio Perez: Perez. who cannot speak English. testified
through a Spanish interpreter. He would not take the oath
nor would he affirm. Perez is in the maintenance depart-
ment of the University. He did not recall the Union's cam-
paign to organize the maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer. He testified that he attended union meetings, and he
knew who Enio Perrozzi was. Moreover, he remembered
Perrozzi's speaking in English at the meetings. Having es-
tablished that this witness who does not speak English and
was in attendance at a meeting where a speech was made in
English, counsel concluded the interrogation of the witness.
Robert T. Slovesky: Slovesky testified that he attended
one union meeting prior to the election. According to his
testimony, at the meeting Perrozzi said that employees who
are already employed by the University would not have to
pay an initiation fee. He never heard that anyone who did
not sign any union card would have to pay an initiation fee
at any time.
Forrest Felder. Felder testified that he attended two
union meetings prior to the election. At the first meeting.
Perrozzi allegedly stated, according to this witness, that
there would not be an initiation fee for those already work-
ing at the University. but there would be a fee for those
hired after the Union got in. This witness never heard that
employees who did not sign union cards would have to pay
initiation fees.
Julio C. Rivera: Rivera testified that he attended a union
meeting during the campaign. At the meeting, "a black per-
son" said that anyone who was working for the University
at that time did not have to pay an initiation fee. He never
heard that anyone who did not sign a card would have to
pay an initiation fee. He voted on the day of the election,
' Certification of conduct of election.
and just belore he voted he asked ('ordero in Spanish it' it
was time to vote. Cordero responded that it was time and
he cculd go in. The response was in Spanish. and nothing
further was said.
Samuel Cruai.: Craft testified that he attended the second
union meeting. At the meeting Perrozzi said that it' the Uni-
versity hired new men and they joined the Union they
would have to pas the $50 fee. C'raft stated that he never
had a conversation with Zgradden about initiation fees.
Te.simonv of Samuel Tabore/lli. Taborelli. after his recol-
lection was refreshed, testified that he attended one union
meeting during the Union's organizational campaign. At
the meeting Perrozzi mentioned nothing about an initiation
fee. Taborelli testified further that Perrozzi told him at his
home in March or April 1978 that he would not have to pay
an initiation fee.
Sylvia Bonewicz: Bonewicz testified that she never heard
that those people who did not sign union cards would have
to pay a $50 fee. She did hear that if the Union got in, a
new employee would have to pay a $50 fee. She did not
know who she heard this from, probably one of her cowork-
ers.
Lucius Gattrrison: Gattison testified that he asked Cordero
and two women if it was the right room in which to vote.
Someone told him it was and that he could vote at 5 p.m.
He asked if he could vote at that time, and they said yes. so
he voted. According to his testimony, he looked at the clock
on the wall, and it was 9 a.m. or I minute after when he
voted. He told "a woman" that he appreciated her letting
him vote because he would not have to come back in the
afternoon. which would have created a problem for him.'
He testified that no one ever told him that he would have
to pay a $50 initiation fee if he did not sign a union autho-
rization card.
Enio Perro:zi: Perrozzi. an organizer for the Union for 4
years, testified that he held two meetings with employees at
the labor temple in New Haven, Connecticut. The first
meeting was held March 18. 1978, and the second meeting
was held on April 15. of the same year. According to Per-
rozzi, he had been aware, prior to any meeting. of a union
policy that any employees in a bargaining unit and on the
Excelsior list would not pay initiation fees. whether or not
they signed a union authorization card. Moreover. after an
election is won, and if a contract is negotiated, new hires
who are in the unit must pay an initiation fee. Ite testified
further that this policy has remained unchanged to date.
At the March 18. meeting one of the employees asked if
there was an initiation fee. Perrozzi testified that he re-
sponded that there was no initiation fee for the employees
presently on the payroll. and that, after a contract was
signed, all new hires would have to pay the initiation fee.
He testified that he learned of this policy from the union
manager. Joseph Farrell. and he believes that in the
Union's bylaws it is stated that the union manager has the
discretion of whether or not to charge initiation fees.
According to Perrozzi, another question regarding initi-
ation fees was raised at the second union meeting. He re-
sponded the same as he had at the first meeting. He never at
any time stated that those employees who did not sign their
'Deobil testified that the ballot hox had not been sealed, and there had
nol been an anrouncem eni that the polls were closed
729
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorization card prior to the election would have to pay
initiation fees. Perrozzi testified that he never spoke to
Diehl regarding initiation fees. Perrozzi testified that upon
learning of Diehl's attitude' he spoke to Diehl on three oc-
casions. On those occasions Perrozzi only spoke to Diehl
about union benefits. He specifically denies telling Diehl
that if he did not sign a card before the election he would
have to pay an initiation fee.
Perrozzi testified that he had no conversation with Morro
regarding Morro being a shop steward. Nor did he tell any-
one that Morro would be appointed a steward after the
election. Moreover, according to his testimony. stewards in
his local are elected rather than appointed.
He testified that at the first union meeting Bobby Head,
business agent fbr the Union, in response to a question from
the floor, stated that there was no initiation fee. Perrozzi
also testified that he told Cordero that there was no initi-
ation fee for employees who were on the payroll and in the
unit at the time of the election. He testified that at the
second meeting he told the assembled employees that there
would be no initiation fee for the original group until the
contract was consummated and ratified and that the initi-
ation fee is charged only for new people who are hired after
the contract has been signed.
Perrozzi testified further that Cordero was not paid by
the Union for organizing or for being its observer at the
election. Cordero did not speak at any union meetings, and
all literature to employees was sent over Perrozzi's signa-
ture. Perrozzi never advised Cordero to speak to employees
with regard to the policy of when initiation fees are paid.
He specifically testified that it never came to his attention
that Cordero was saying anything to employees concerning
the initiation fee policy.
At the preelection conference on May 12. 1978. Perrozzi
testified that he merely greeted employees with the word
"hello."
Bobby Head. Head had been employed by the Union as a
business agent for 9-1/2 years. He testified that the Union's
policy with respect to initiation fees has always been to
waive such fees for newly organized employers. The waiver
applies to all those members who are in the unit prior to the
execution of a collective-bargaining agreement. According
to Head, the policy was communicated to him 9 years ago
by the then business manager, Anthony Pattrone. No one
has advised him that the policy has ever been changed, and
this policy was adhered to with respect to the employees at
the University of New Haven.
Head attended the second union meeting where a ques-
tion was raised concerning initiation fees. According to
Head. Perrozzi responded to the question by stating that
there would not be any initiation fee for employees who
were in the bargaining unit at that time, and that there
would be a fee after a contract had been ratified.
Ivan Cordero. Cordero, a maintenance employee, testified
that he acted as the Union's observer during the election.
During the election. Grossi asked him if Zgradden had
voted. Cordero told him no. According to this witness, there
were no other occasions wherein he was asked whether a
person voted. He testified that the only other voter he
6 Diehl did not sign a union card, was not interested in a union, and did
not want the Union to represent him.
talked to during the election was Rivera. According to C'or-
dero's testimony. Rivera passed by in the hall and asked in
Spanish if it was time to vote. Cordero responded yes, and
Rivera came in the the voting place, voted, and left immedi-
ately.
On the day of the election he arrived outside the lunch-
room where the election was to be conducted at 7:30 a.m.
He stayed in this hallway area for 20 minutes and saw Per-
rozzi talking to employer representatives. not employees.
Before Gattison voted no one stated that the polls were
closed.
Cordero testified that he met Perrozzi more than I ear
prior to the date of the hearing when Perrozzi was at his
home discussing the Union with his wife. Perrozzi gave him
blank union authorization cards to distribute. He gave
cards to Morro and Pagan. According to Cordero, Morro
returned a few signed cards. Cordero stated that, when he
asked people to sign cards, he did not tell them he was
working for the Union or that he was paid by the Union for
organizing. Prior to the election, there was no organizing
committee, and he attended union meetings but did not
speak at the meetings to the assembled group.
Cordero testified that Perrozzi told him that the employ-
ees do not have to pay initiation fees, but after the contract
new people hired would have to pay a $50 fee. Furthermore
Cordero told employees, pursuant to what he learned from
Perrozzi, that people who were working did not have to pay
an initiation fee. He specifically denied telling anyone that
if they did not sign a card they would have to pay an initi-
ation fee.
According to Cordero. at the second union meeting. Per-
rozzi explained that university employees did not have to
pay an initiation fee but only had to pay dues. Perrozzi
continued that, if the Union won the election and a con-
tract was executed, new people who were hired had to pay
a $50 fee.
Cordero testified that Perrozzi never told him that he.
Cordero, was going to be the head of an organizing commit-
tee and to communicate or transmit messages to other em-
ployees for him. Cordero never took messages from em-
ployees to Perrozzi and never gave employees' addresses
and telephone numbers to Perrozzi, nor did Perrozzi ever
ask him to do so. Cordero never told employees that if they
did not sign cards they would have to pay $50.
Conclusions and Analysis
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that the state-
ment to Diehl that unless he signed an authorization card
for the Union before the election he would have to pay a
$50 initiation fee and similar statements to employees at the
April 15 meeting are unfair labor practices within the pre-
cepts enunciated in N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufacturing Co.,
414 U.S. 270 (1973). Counsel recognizes that in Savair such
interference with employees' free choice constituted objec-
tionable conduct and argues further that dicta support the
proposition that such conduct also constitutes an unfair la-
bor practice. Perhaps this argument would succeed if the
record supported the allegations of the complaint, but such
is not the case. Diehl. in my opinion, is not to be credited.
On cross-examination, he vacillated and admitted at one
730
AMALGAMATED INDUSTRIAL UNION
point that Perrozzi and Morro told him that his payment of
an initiation fee was predicated on whether he signed a card
before or after a contract was negotiated. Moreover. his
testimony conflicted with his affidavit in that he was not
sure whether Perrozzi used the phrase "before the election."
Even more striking is my impression that Diehl had a seri-
ous hearing impairment and was not able to hear me when
I spoke directly to him. I faced him during the hearing. and
it appeared to me that he had minimal hearing only on his
left side. I credit the testimony of Perrozzi and conclude
that he did not tell Diehl that if he did not sign a card
before the election he would have to pas an initiation fee.
I also credit the testimony of Perrozzi and the corrobora-
tive testimony of Head with respect to the meeting on April
15 that Perro7zi responded to a question from the floor that
there would not be any initiation fee for those who were in
the bargaining unit, and that after a contract was negoti-
ated and signed new hires would have to pay an initiation
fee. This testimony was also corroborated by several wit-
nesses who were called to testify by counsel for the Re-
gional Director. In this regard I specifically discredit Rob-
ert Zgradden. who testified contrary and at variance with
the majority of witnesses whom I consider to be impartial.
Accordingly, I recommend that the allegations of the com-
plaint be dismissed and that Objections I. 2, 3, and 5 be
overruled.
There was no evidence that the Union induced employ-
ees to vote for it by promising its supporters reduction in
dues; I therefore recommend overruling Objection 4.
DiMarzo testified that Morro and Cordero told him that
if he did not sign a card he would have to pay $50 "after,"
and that Morro and Coroso "told him the same" after the
election. DiMarzo had a very real language problem, and in
my opinion he did not understand what Morro. Cordero.
and Coroso told him any more than he understood the
questions propounded to him at the hearing. Moreover. I
conclude that Morro, Cordero, and Coroso were not agents
of the Union.
Objections 6 through 15' relate to the election process
and the Union's conduct at or near the polls on the day of
the election. Witness Deobil testified that she saw Perrozzi
talking to employees but did not hear what he was saying.
His testimony was that he was merely greeting them by
saying hello, and there is no evidence to the contrary. I
therefore recommend overruling Objections 6 and 7. fur-
ther recommend overruling Objection 8 on the same basis.
' Objections 12, 15, and 18 were withdrawn with the approval of the Re-
gional Directr.
The evidence relating to Objections 9 and 10 vwas that
Cordero spoke to employees in Spanish. but Deobhil did not
know what he said to them. This does not constitute con-
duct which would warrant setting an election aside. I there-
fore recommend that Objections 9 and 10 be overruled. No
evidence was presented relating to Objection II11. I therefore
recommend that it be overruled.
There is no evidence to support Objections 13 and 14. I
therefore recommend that they be overruled. Objections 16
through 28 allege improper conduct on the part of the
Board agent during the election process. The evidence ad-
duced in this regard is pure trivia. If. in fact, the Board
agent was friendly to Perro.zi and smiled but seemed
"cold" and "brisk" towards employer representatives or
said "Hello" to Deobil quickly, this is no basis for setting an
election aside. Nor is reading during the polling improper
conduct warranting settng the election aside. I therefore
recommend overruling Objections 16 through 29. Objection
29 being a catchall objection encompassing Objections I
through 28. In summary. 1 recommend that the allegations
of the complaint be dismissed, that all of the objections be
overruled, and that the Union he certified as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropri-
ate unit.
(CON( I SIO()NS OF LAW
1. The Employer, University of New Haven, is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that the Union has
engaged in conduct iolative of Section 8(b)( )(A) of the
Act has not been supported by substantial evidence.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of' law.
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act. I hereby issue the following:
ORDER'
It is recommended that the complaint herein be. and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
I In the event no exceptions are filed as prosided bh Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the indings.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as pro ided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted hb the Board and become its
findings. conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed
walved fr all purposes
731