Craftmatic Comfort Mfg. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1990

299 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

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