Hecla Mining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 860 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hecla Mining Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC; International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local 428, AFL-CIO; Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Local 310;
Laborers District Council, State of Arizona, Local
479, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 570, AFL-CIO, Joint
Petitioner. Case 28-RC-2495
June 26, 1975
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an
election held March 6, 1974,1 and the attached
Hearing Officer's report recommending disposition
of same. The Board has reviewed the record in light
of the parties' exceptions and briefs, and hereby
adopts the Hearing Officer's fmdings2 and recom-
mendations,3 with the following modification.
Objections were timely filed in this proceeding on
March 13, 1974.4 Thereafter, on June 7, after the
Regional Director had issued his Report and
Recommendations and while the Employer's excep-
tions thereto were pending before the Board, the
Employer filed additional objections, identified as
2(a) through (1), based on alleged misconduct first
discovered during its investigation of the original
objections.
The Hearing Officer found that, although the
additional objections filed on June 7 were not timely
filed and that the Employer, with due diligence,
could have timely developed and filed them, these
objections could nevertheless be considered at this
time . We disagree with the conclusion that consider-
ation of the June 7 objections is proper.
In support of his finding, the Hearing Officer relied
on certain decisions in which the Board held that it
was not only proper but incumbent upon the
Regional Director, in investigating objections, to
consider conduct which, although not timely alleged
as constituting objectional conduct, was discovered
and developed during such investigation.5 However,
these cases are inapposite inasmuch as they involved
matters which came to the Board's attention in the
course of its investigation of timely filed objections.
None of them involved a situation where, as here, the
objecting party filed new objections after the Region-
al Office had completed its investigation of the timely
filed objections, the Regional Director's Report and
Recommendations had issued, and the proceeding
was pending before the Board. Accordingly, we find
the objections filed on June 7, nearly 3 months after
three original objections, were not timely filed and
should not have been considered.6
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC; International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local 428 , AFL-CIO; Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, Local 310 ; Labor-
ers District Council, State of Arizona , Local 479,
AFL-CIO; and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local 570 , AFL-CIO, and that,
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the foregoing labor
organizations jointly are 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 at the employer 's Lakeshore Project of
Hecla Mining Company , located approximately
30 miles south of Casa Grande , Arizona ; exclud-
ing office clericals , guards , watchmen, profession-
als, all subcontractor employees and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
i The election was conducted pursuant to a Supplemental Decision,
Order, and Direction of Second Election issued by the Board . The tally was:
329 for, and 291 against, the Joint Petitioner ; there were 2 challenged
ballots , an insufficient number to affect the result.
2 The Employer has excepted to certain credibility resolutions of the
Hearing Officer. It is the established policy of the Board not to overrule a
Hearing Officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect.
The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis, 132 NLRB 481, 483 (1961);
Stretch-Tex Co., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find no sufficient basis
for disturbing the credibility resolutions in this case.
3 Inasmuch as neither party has excepted to the Hearing Officer's
recommendations that Objections 2(e) and 2(k) be overruled , we adopt, pro
forma, his recommendations with respect to these objections.
4 All dates herein are in 1974 unless otherwise indicated.
5 Hobart Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 203 (1950); North Lake
Convalescent Hospital, 173 NLRB 992 ( 1968); Thomas Products Co., Division
of Thomas Industries, Inc., 169 NLRB 706 (1968); National Electric Co., Div.
McGraw Edison Company, 184 NLRB 691 (1970); First Health Care
Corporation d/b/a Hanford House Health Care 210 NLRB 188 (1974);
Richard A. Glass Company, 120 NLRB 914 (1958); McFarling Bros,
Mulstate Poultry & Egg Co., 123 NLRB 1384 (1959).
6 Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended, Sec. 102.69;
Heritage Nursing Center, Inc., 207 NLRB 826 (1973). Cf. Jason/Empire, Inc.,
212 NLRB 137 (1974). In any event, we find, in agreement with the Hearing
Officer, that the June 7 objections were, in any event, lacking in merit.
218 NLRB No. 61