Local 373, Int'l Assn. of Bridge Workers, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1058 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1058 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 373, International Association of Bridge , Structural and.
Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO; Local 1006 , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO; Middlesex County (N.J.) Building Trades Council and
Marshall Maintenance Corporation , Charging Party. Case
No. 22-CC-201. April 24, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 5, 1963, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
with a supporting brief, and the Respondents filed briefs in opposition
to exceptions and brief of the General Counsel.
. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, exceptions, and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, :conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon the charge filed by the Charging Party (herein called Marshall) on May 20,
1963, the General Counsel, on June 7, 1963, issued a complaint against the
Respondents alleging that they had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) of
the Act ( the so-called secondary boycott provisions ) by picketing the premises of
Okonite Company , thereby inducing and encouraging the employees of Okonite and
other individuals to engage in a strike , with an object of forcing Okonite to cease
doing business with Marshall. The parties filed answers denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices . The case was heard by Trial Examiner Owsley Vose
on October 23 and 24, 1963, at Newark, New Jersey. All parties appeared and
were represented by counsel at the hearing , and were afforded a full opportuntity
to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.- At the close of the
hearing counsel for Respondents made brief oral arguments . The filing of briefs
was waived by all parties.
146 NLRB No . 129. .
LOCAL 373, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE WORKERS, ETC. 1059
Upon the entire record herein and my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Marshall, a New Jersey corporation, has places of business at Trenton and
various other places in New Jersey, where it is engaged in the business of repairing
buildings, installing and moving machinery, and performing related services. In
the year ending September 30, 1963, a representative year, Marshall caused more
than $50,000 worth of machine parts and other goods and materials to be shipped
to its places of business in New Jersey from out-of-State sources.
Okonite, a subsidiary of Kennecott Copper Corporation, is ,a New Jersey corpora-
tion having its principal place of business at Passaic, New Jersey. Okonite also
operates various other places of business in New Jersey and Rhode Island , includ-
ing a plant at North Brunswick, New Jersey, where the unfair labor practices in-
volved in this case allegedly occurred. At its various places of business Okonite
,is engaged in the manufacture and sale of wire, cable, splicing tape and related
products. In the course of its operations in the past year, a representative period,
•Okonite caused to be delivered to its various plants in New Jersey from out-of-State
sources in excess of $50,000 worth of goods and materials . It is found, in ac-
•cordance with the stipulation of the parties, that Marshall is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that Okonite is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(4) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The Respondents, Local 373, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
-Ornamental Iron Workers, AFI-CIO, and Local 1006, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as they admit, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The Respondent Middlesex
County (N.J.) Building Trades Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council,
denies for the purposes of this case, that it is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. In view of my ultimate decision herein that the
picketing complained of was permissible primary picketing conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the Act, it is unnecessary for me to resolve this issue.
.III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
1. Events prior to the picketing at the Okonite plant
Okonite entered into a contract with Marshall to have it perform certain
construction work within its New Brunswick plant. The work, which was com-
menced on May 13, 1963, included the moving of one bank of machines to a new
location in the location in the plant, the assembling of a cabling machine sent from
Okonite's main plant at Passaic, and the erection of a platform and catwalk as an
extension of an existing platform. The completion of the work required the serv-
ices of both ironworkers and carpenters.
John Wade, the business agent of Iron Workers Local 373, received a report that
the work was in progress inside the plant the same day it was started. Wade
directed Arthur Jensen, the assistant business agent of Iron Workers Local 373,
to go to the Okonite plant to investigate. On Tuesday, May 14, 1963, Jensen, ac-
companied by Julius Fekete, the business agent of Carpenters Local 1006, went to
the plant. Arriving at the guardhouse at the one employee entrance to the plant,
Jensen asked to see officials of the company which was doing construction work
in the plant. The guard informed Jensen and Fekete that they would not be
permitted to do so, but that they could see Charles Ludolph, the personnel manager
for the Okonite New Brunswick plant.
Upon arriving at Ludolph's office, Jensen inquired as to what concern was doing
the construction work in the plant. When Ludolph informed him that Marshall
was doing the work, Jensen requested permission to go into the plant and talk to
the person in charge of Marshall's work there. Ludolph refused this request,
declaring that it was against company policy to allow anyone inside the plant.
The testimony concerning the rest of the conversation between Jensen and
Fekete, for the Locals, and Ludolph, for Okdnite, is not altogether consistent. Ac-
cording to Ludolph, Jensen stated that "while he did not particularly care whether
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marshall Maintenance did the work or not, he was desirous . of Marshall Main-
tenance taking on employees from the particular Locals that he and Mr. Fekete
represented." Throughout his testimony Ludolph stressed that the Locals were
seeking to have Marshall employ members of Iron Workers Local 373 and Carpen-
ters Local 1006. On the other hand, in their testimony both Jensen and Fekete
were equally insistent that Jensen had not requested the hiring of union members
but had merely stated that he wanted to see to it that Marshall observed the pre-
vailing union wages and working conditions.' I find it unnecessary to resolve the
conflicting testimony above set forth, for even if it be found that Jensen requested.
that Marshall employ members of Iron Workers Local 373 and Carpenters Local
1006, this does not establish that the Locals were supporting an impermissible
objective in their dispute with Marshall. Squarely in point is International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, etc., Local No. 193 (Combustion Associates, Inc.), 144
NLRB 1206, in which the Union demanded of the secondary employer in a similar
common situs situation that "the job done by the subcontractor should be done
by union boilermakers." The Board, in reversing the Trial Examiner's holding
that the union's picketing of the secondary employer's premises violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, noted that the union "was carrying out a legal
protest against Green's (the subcontractor) use of nonunion labor at the situs."
It is, of course, settled that primary picketing to protest the employer's failure to
observe area wages and working conditions is lawful. Houston Building and Con-
struction Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction Company), 136 NLRB
321, 322-323.
In any event, Ludolph's response to Jensen's statement, either that he wanted union
men hired by Marshall or that he wanted Marshall to observe the prevailing union
wages and working conditions (depending upon which version one accepts), was
that Jensen should take the matter up with Marshall. When Jensen requested
Marshall's phone number Ludolph replied that he knew no more about Marshall
than did Jensen. Jensen then asked Ludolph if he could arrange a meeting with
officials of Marshall. Ludolph, apparently construing this as a request for a joint
meeting between Marshall and Okonite and the representatives of the Locals, replied
that he could see no useful purpose in holding such a meeting, that such a meeting
should be held with Marshall. Ludolph added, however, that he would consult
with his superiors about the matter and let Jensen know if he could arrange such
a meeting.2 Jensen and Fekete handed Ludolph their business cards and
departed .3
On Wednesday morning May 15, a regular meeting of the board of agents of the
Respondent Council was held. The Board consists of the business agents of the 22
craft unions which comprise the Council. Wade reported to the board of agents
that Marshall was doing construction work at the Okonite plant. A decision was
reached that pickets be placed outside the Okonite plant. The record does not
make it clear who made this decision. The testimony of Wade, the business agent
of Iron Workers Local 373, attributes the decision to commence picketing Okonite
to himself and Business Agent Fekete of Carpenters Local 1006. While the com-
plaint charges the Council also with responsibility for the picketing which occurred
in this case, in view of my ultimate decision herein I need not resolve the question
which is raised by some of the evidence in this case as to whether the Council, through
its board of agents, also participated in the decision to picket the Okonite plant.
While at the board of agents meeting, Wade was informed that Solomon Kreitman,
the attorney for Marshall, had called him. Wade requested Frank Marchitto, the
On cross-examination, Ludolph testified as follows: ". . . the point was made by Mr.
Jensen In the first meeting, that Marshall was nonunion and did not pay the wage scale
that they should, In his estimation, have been paying."
2 Ludolph testified that Jensen said In addition on this occasion that his organization
had "particularly good relationships with the IBEW in Washington, D.C. (Okonite's pro-
duction and maintenance employees are represented by Local 1992 of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) and that If we could not reach an amicable conclusion
in New Jersey, that he would contact the IBEW for whatever steps were necessary to
reach an amicable conclusion ." Both Jensen and Fekete denied that any such statement
was made by Jensen on this occasion. I find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict In the
testimony for under applicable Board law such a statement, even if believed, lacks pro-
bative value with regard to the Issues before me.
'For reasons which will become apparent hereinafter, It should be noted that the card
which Jensen gave Ludolph is primarily the card of Wade, the business agent of Iron
Workers Local 373. In the lower left hand corner Jensen's name appears in smaller type,
with the title below, "Assistant Business Agent."
LOCAL 373, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE WORKERS, ETC. 1061
business agent of Local 456, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
the president of the Council, to call Kreitman back in his behalf. Local 456 was
in no way involved in the dispute with Marshall at the Okonite plant. Wade ex-
plained his action in having Marchitto call Kreitman by saying that since Fekete
was not present he wanted to have Marchitto verify the substance of the conversation.
Marchitto called Kreitman with Wade listening to the conversation on an extension
telephone. Kreitman asked Marchitto what the problem was. A brief discussion
ensued, so Marchitto testified, "as to whether Marshall was observing union wages
and working conditions at the Okonite plant." Kreitman stated that a representation
case was pending before the Board involving Local 731 of the United Automobile
Workers and Marshall's employees at another plant, and that an election had been
held. Kreitman gave Marchitto the number of the representation case and said
that Marchitto could inquire of the National Labor Relation Board to verify his
statement. Marchitto said that he would check with his attorney. This conversa-
tion was the only contact the Respondents had at any time with Marshall. No
other attempts were made by any of the Respondents to get in touch with Marshall.
Later that day, upon checking back with his office, Wade was informed that
Ludolph, Okonite's personnel manager, was trying to reach him by telephone .4
When Wade returned the call Ludolph informed him that he had consulted his supe-
riors and that they agreed that Wade's problem was with Marshall and that no
useful purpose would be served by Okonite's sitting in on a meeting with Marshall
and representatives of the Locals.5 There is a dispute as to Wade's concluding re-
mark in this conversation. According to Ludolph, Wade closed with the remark that
"he was not satisfied, that he wanted union personnel used on the job." Wade
testified that he had said that his "only interest is that the union prevailing wages
and conditions, be upheld." Again, as indicated above, I need not resolve this
conflict in the testimony for neither version is inconsistent with a lawful union
objective. .
After the decision was made to picket the Okonite plant, Wade asked Marchitto,
the president of the Council, to consult "the attorney" about the wording of the
picket sign. Pursuant. to this request, Marchitto called Thomas Parsonnet, who
represented both Iron Workers Local 373 and the Council at the hearing.
Later, after Marchitto had received advice from Parsonnet about the wording of
the signs, Wade asked Marchitto to have the picket signs prepared in his office.
This was Marchitto's office as business manager of Local 456 of th IBEW. The
Council does not have an office of its own. Marchitto complied with this request and
arranged with Jensen of Ironworkers Local 373 and Fekete of Carpenters Local 1006
to deliver the signs to them early Friday morning near the Okonite plant.
2. The picketing
Marchitto delivered the picket . signs to Jensen and Fekete at about 6:45 a.m. on
Friday, May 17, 1963. At 6:50 a.m., five pickets wearing picket signs commenced
walking back and forth on a small curving triangle of land immediately outside
the front gate to the plant premises. The picketing continued until 4:30 p.m. that
day. The picket signs carried the following text:
Employees of Marshall Maintenance Company
which is performing construction work in
this plant are receiving less than
building trades prevailing wages.e
4 Ludolph apparently called Wade In fulfillment of his promise to Jensen on the day
before. In view of the fact that the business card which Jensen handed Ludolph as he
left.Ludolph's office on the previous day was that of Wade, the business agent of Iron
Workers Local 373, it may be that at the time Ludolph called Wade he was under the
Impression that he had been talking to Wade on the day before.
5 The foregoing finding is based on the credited testimony of Ludolph. Wade's recollec-
tion was that he requested Ludolph in this conversation to arrange a meeting with
Marshall and that Ludolph said he would check into it and call Wade back. While
Ludolph's memory of the circumstances under which this conversation was held is some-
what hazy, I•elieve his version is more consistent with the undisputed facts of the case.
6It is admitted that none of the union representatives were informed at the time as to
the wages paid by Marshall to employees on the Okonite job. However , in view of my
ultimate conclusion herein that the picketing here Involved was permissible primary
picketing conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Act, I find this fact
immaterial.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Okonite plant is located on U.S. 1 in New Brunswick. At this point U.S. 1 is
a limited access highway. The front gate of the plant is served by access roads from
U.S. 1 and these roads which lead to the front gate are the only means of ingress
and egress to and from the plant for employees and others having business at the
plant. The small triangle of land on which the pickets were patrolling is bounded
on one side by the entering access road and on -another side by the departing access
road.
Okonite's first shift is from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Okonite's employees commence
arriving at the plant at 6:10 a.m. and the bulk of the employees normally arrive
between 7 and 7:15 a.m.
The scheduled hours of Marshall's employees while on the Okonite job were from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. They usually arrived at the plant about 7:50 a.m. When
the picketing began, the Locals admittedly had no knowledge of the starting times
of either the Okonite or Marshall employees. They made no inquiry about 'these
matters at any time. The 6:50 a.m. starting time for picketing was chosen, according
to Wade, because the Locals did not know when Marshall's employees would arrive
and wanted to be there in the event the Marshall employees commenced work at
7 a.m.
The next morning, Saturday, May 18, picketing again commenced at 6:50 o'clock.
However, it commenced raining hard and the pickets left at 7:15 a.m. and did not re-
turn that day. At the time the pickets were instructed to report on Saturday
morning, the Locals did not know whether any Okonite employees would be working
or not. There was no picketing on Sunday, May 19.
On Monday morning, May 20, the pickets again resumed picketing in the same
place outside the front gate at 6:50 o'clock. Both the Okonite and Marshall em-
ployees went past the pickets and entered the plant premises. However, the Okonite
employees did not go into the plant and go to work. Neither did the Marshall
employees. Only Raymond Katzmar, Marshall's field supervisor at the Okonite
plant, went into the building. Katzmar talked to Ludolph, but did not do any work.
David Peiffer, manager of employee relations for all of Okonite's plants, sought
to reach Wade at his office by telephone around 11 o'clock that morning, but Wade
was out checking jobs. Wade happened to encounter Marchitto as he was making
his calls that morning. Wishing to use a telephone, Wade and Marchitto went to
Marchitto's office. There Wade received a message to call his office. Upon calling
his office, Wade was told to call Peiffer.. After calling.Peiffer several times and
finding the line busy each time, Wade and Marchitto decided to go to the plant which
was only two or three blocks away.
Inside the plant gate Wade and Marchitto met four officials of Local 1992, which
represented Okonite's employees. The Local 1992 officials had apparently been seek-
ing a meeting with Ludolph. The six union officials walked into the plant together.
The group saw Peiffer and Ludolph inside the plant. Peiffer said that he only wanted
to talk to Wade. Marchitto prevailed upon Peiffer to include him also in the talks.
The four Local 1992 officials asked Peiffer to permit them to sit in on the discussions.
Peiffer, after referring to the hardship to Okonite which Local 1992's work. stoppage
had caused and stating that they would have to suffer the consequences, finally con-
sented to include them in discussions. Wentworth, the plant manager, sat in on the
discussions also. -
Peiffer opened the discussion by asking who had called the meeting and what
was its purpose. Wade replied that he had received a message concerning a tele-
phone call from Peiffer, and that it was just as convenient to call at the plant to talk
to him. As to the purpose of the meeting it was stated that there was a dispute
with Marshall into which Local 1992 (the Okonite employees' representative) had
injected itself. • Peiffer then asked what unions were on the picket line. Marchitto,
who was president of the Council, replied that it could be any of the unions belonging
.to the Council. Peiffer then stated that he had placed the telephone call to Wade not
to arrange a meeting but for the purpose of informing those concerned "that Marshall
Maintenance was through as far as the job was concerned.", Peiffer then asked
Marchitto, who was acting as spokesmen for the picketing organizations, if that
was what he wanted. Marchitto replied, "not necessarily," that he was still concerned
about the conditions under which the balance of the work was to be completed. Ac-
cording to Ludolph, Marchitto stated in effect that he wanted "union personnel" to
be used. Marchitto testified that he stated that he was still concerned about the
work being completed under prevailing union wages and working conditions. For
the reason indicated above, it is unnecessary for me to resolve this conflict in the
testimony. At this point Marchitto and Wade asked for a recess. After stepping to
one side and conferring briefly, they returned to the conference table, and Marchitto
LOCAL 373, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE WORKERS, ETC. 1063
announced "that in the light of the company's statement that Marshall was to be
removed from the job, he would remove the pickets." 7
Marchitto and Wade then left and the pickets were -promptly removed. This
happened between 12 and 12:30 p.m. The second shift Okonite employees reported
for work on schedule. Marshall performed no further work at the Okonite plant.
B. Conclusions
It is well established that Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act is designed to prohibit
labor organizations from engaging in picketing, strikes, and other related activities
against secondary employers in an effort to achieve their goals in their disputes with
the primary employers. Section 8(b)(4)(B). was not intended to reach primary
picketing. Indeed, Congress in the 1959 amendments included a specific proviso
stating that "nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlaw-
ful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing" (Section
8(b) (4) (B) ). In common situs situations, such as is involved in this case, picketing
may often affect the employees of secondary employers as well as the employees of
the primary employer with which the union has the dispute.
In order to protect the right of unions in common si-tus situations to engage
in primary activity the Board has established a set of criteria for determining whether
the picketing or other activity is of the prohibited secondary character or is protected
primary activity. As laid down in Sailors' Union of the Pacific AFL (Moore Dry
Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, picketing at a common situs will be deemed of the
permissible primary character if (1) the picketing is strictly limited to times when
the situs of the dispute is at the secondary employer's premises, (2) at the time of the
picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs, (3)
the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs, and (4)
the picketing clearly discloses that the dispute is with the primary employer.
The facts above set forth disclose that criteria (1), (3), and (4) are fully satisfied
in this case. The General Counsel contends that because the pickets arrived at
Okonite's entrance gate at 6:50 a.m. when the Marshall employees did not arrive
until an hour later, the Respondents did not comply with criteria (2), and therefore
the -picketing is to be deemed unlawful.
Under all the circumstances of the case I cannot agree with General Counsel's
contention in this regard. Employees, even though they have set working hours, do
not normally arrive on the job at the very moment the workday is to begin. They
ordinarily arrive somewhat ahead of time, how much depending upon a number of
factors, such as the individual"employee's personal habits, his means of transportation,
his other early morning chores, and the like.. Hence, if a picketing union is to reach
the employees of the primary employer some latitude must be allowed in regard to
the time it may commence picketing.
The record in this case shows that the picketing commenced about an hour before
the actual arrival time of the Marshall employees and ended each day at 4:30 p.m.
when the Marshall employees left. There was no picketing during the other shifts
although Okonite had three shifts of employees working around the clock (except
those shifts which began or ended between 6:50 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.).
The Board, in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861,
and Arneth Lard, its agent (Plauche Electric, Inc.), 135 NLRB 250, 255, has indi-
cated that the Moore Dry Dock criteria are not to be mechanically applied but are
rather to be given a reasonable commonsense application taking into consideration
all of the circumstances of each individual case.
In this case, the picketing organizations were entitled to attempt to reach Marshall's
employees and try to communicate their message to them. However, the picketing
organizations were unaware either of the identity of the Marshall employees or of
their reporting times. As pointed out hereinabove, there are normally considerable
variations in the reporting times of employees generally. The picketing at the gate
of the Okonite plant actually occurred on but three occasions, once from 6:50 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., another time from 6:50 a.m. to 7:15 a.m., when it was discontinued
4 The foregoing findings are based upon the combined testimony of Ludolph, Peiffer,
Marchitto, and Wade. While the individual versions of the discussions at this meeting
are not completely consistent; they are substantially in harmony, and the above account
is the result of my efforts to reach the most logical reconciliation of such inconsistencies
as there are in the testimony. The quoted testimony is that of Personnel Manager Ludolph,
who, I believe, had a more accurate recollection of the events of this meeting than did
Employee Relations Director Peiffer.
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of a hard rain , and a third time from 6:50 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. On these
days the Marshall employees were actually on Okonite's premises from 7:50 a.m. to
4:30 p .m. Under all circumstances of the case , I conclude that the picketing at the
Okonite plant gate for 1 hour at most before the actual arrival of the Marshall em-
ployees at the plant did not constitute noncompliance with criteria (2) of the Moore
Dry Dock standards . I am fortified in this conclusion by the recent decision of the
Board in Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
(New Power Wire etc. ), 144 NLRB 1089, another common -situs case , in which "the
absence of primary employees from some of the sites of the picketing for substantial
periods of time," several weeks at some sites, was held under all the circum-
stances of that case not to establish unlawful inducement of the employees of
secondary employers.
Accordingly , I conclude that the picketing at Okonite's plant gate complained of in
this case was permissible primary picketing and not in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii ) (B) of the Act.
IV. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Local 373, International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO; Local 1006 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO; and Middlesex County (N.J.) Building Trades Council have
not violated Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) ( B) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is ordered that the complaint herein be , and it is hereby, dismissed.
Tubesales and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-8621. April 24, 1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed on October 23, 1963, and approved by the Regional Direc-
tor, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 20, 1963,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region of the National Labor Relations Board among
the employees in the unit herein found appropriate. Following the
election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally
shows that, of approximately 86 eligible voters, 84 cast ballots, of
which 39 were for the Petitioner, 36 were against the Petitioner, and
9 ballots were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on January 13,
1964, issued and served upon the parties his Report on Challenged
Ballots. On January 31, 1964, the Employer filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
146 NLRB No. 126.