Electronic Components Corp. of North Carolina

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 829 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS CORP OF N C. 829
Electronic Components Corporation of North Carolina
and International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local 495, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
11-RC-3887
December 16, 1974
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE -
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
Pursuant to authority granted it union Section 3(b)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
three-member panel has considered objections to an
election held May 23, 1974,' and the Regional Direc-
tor's report recommending disposition of same. The
Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's
findings and recommendations.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 495, AFL-CIO, and that,
pursuant to Section 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 collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment:
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Electronic Components Corporation of
North Carolina at its facility located at 203 Elec-
tronics Parkway, Burgaw , N. C., including the
shipping clerk, and excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act and all other
employees.
MEMBER KENNEDY, dessenting in part:
In its Objection 3(a) to the election, the Employer
alleged that Petitioner had "papers" available at its
motel headquarters which purported to show that the
Employer earned $2 million in the last calendar year,
which materially misrepresented the Employer's actual
earnings , and that the Employer did not become aware
of this misrepresentation until after the election. In
response to the Regional Director's request for evi-
dence in support of objections, the Employer replied as
to this objection:
Employee Diane Taylor reports that the Union
had "papers" available at its motel headquarters
and that these papers could be examined by em-
ployees if employees wanted to learn how much
money the Company had made. Other employees
reported that these papers showed that the Com-
pany had earned over $2,000,000 in the last calen-
dar year. We are informed that employee Edna
Pearl Newton examined these papers.
If the Union stated, as witnesses indicate, that the
Employer earned in excess of $2,000,000 during
the last calendar year, that statement is a material
misrepresentation of fact. Since the Employer had
no knowledge of this misrepresentation until after
the election had been conducted, there was no
adequate time for the Employer to respond to the
misrepresentation.
The Employer concluded its response with an expres-
sion of cooperation in an investigation of the objections
and an offer to make witnesses available at a time and
place mutually convenient. However, the Regional Di-
rector rejected the Employer's offer to cooperate in an
investigation and instead ruled without making any
investigation that the objection was not meritorious
and therefore overruled it. My colleagues have affirmed
the Regional Director's ruling. I dissent. A material
misrepresentation of an employer's profits is suffi-
ciently serious to justify setting aside an election.' I
believe that the Employer has submitted sufficient sup-
porting evidence to justify either an investigation by the
Regional Director or a hearing by a Hearing Officer.
Accordingly, I would remand the case to the Regional
Director initially for an investigation of the objection
and for a hearing if his investigation shows it to be
necessary.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election The tally was 71 for, and 36 against, the Petitioner,
there was 20 challenged ballots
2 Henderson Trumbull Supply Corp v NL R B., 501 F 2d 1224 (C.A 2,
1974)
215 NLRB No. 160