Amax Aluminum Extrusion Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1401 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

AMAX ALUMINUM EXTRUSION PRODUCTS 1401
Amax Aluminum Extrusion Products , Inc. and Alu-
minum Workers International Union , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 26-RC-3114
July 30, 1968
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, approved March 6, 1968, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on April
10, 1968, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for Region 26 among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which showed that of approximately 61
eligible voters, 65 cast ballots, of which 35 were
for, and 25 were against, the Petitioner. There were
5 challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Employer filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations , the Regional
Director conducted an investigation and, on May
23, 1968, issued and duly served upon the parties
his Report on Objections in which he recom-
mended that the objections be overruled and that
the Petitioner be certified as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of the employees involved.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's Report on Objections 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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of the employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of
the Employer at its Hernando, Mississippi,
plant, including general plant employees and
die repairman; excluding metallurgical inspec-
tors, office clerical employees, factory and
receiving clerical employees, shipping clerical
employees, technical and professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Board has considered the objections, the Re-
gional Director's Report, the Employer's exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the Regional
Director's findings and recommendations.'
Accordingly, as the tally shows that the Peti-
tioner has obtained a majority of the valid ballots
cast , we shall certify it as the collective -bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that Aluminum Workers In-
ternational Union , AFL-CIO, has been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees in the
unit found appropriate herein as their representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, the said
labor organization is the exclusive representative of
all employees in such 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.
' The Employer urges, as Objection 11-C. that we set aside the election
because of the Board agent's conduct in investigating unfair labor practice
charges against the Employer between shifts of the split-shift election We
decline to do so Only three employees were interviewed , all off the Em-
ployer 's premises , and there is no evidence other employees saw the inter-
viewing , or became aware of it We find the evidence insufficient to
establish that the conduct of the Board agent affected the results of the
election See , e g, Bullard v N L R B, 253 F Supp 391 (D C D C ), Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers (Athbro Precision
Engineering Corp ) v N L R B , 67 LRRM 2361 ( decided January 17,
1968)(D C D C ) Nonetheless , we feel constrained to observe that, in
most circumstances , it would be better practice for the Board agent con-
172 NLRB No. 149
ducting an election to refrain from investigating unfair labor practice
charges between shifts of the election It has long been Board policy that
elections be conducted in as "laboratory " an atmosphere as possible, and,
where feasible , this could best be accomplished if the conduct of the elec-
tion were kept separate from the investigation of unfair labor practice
charges, which charges, of course, may eventually prove baseless We
agree-with the Regional Director that Objection Ill is without merit, but do
not rely on his finding that the employees had ample opportunity to make
inquiries concerning the St Charles contract Except as above noted, the
Employer's exceptions in our opinion, raise no material or substantial is-
sues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director's
findings and recommendations or require a hearing
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 17