Prestolite Wire Division

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 1637 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

PRESTOLITE WIRE DIVISION 1637
Prestolite Wire Division, Eltra Corporation and In-
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, (UAW). Case 7-CA-12848
September 8, 1980
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENEI.ILO
On January 30, 1976, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a Decision and Certification of
Representative in Case 7-RC-13057' wherein it
adopted the Regional Director's report overruling
Respondent's objections to the election and denied
Respondent's request for hearing with respect to its
Objections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Subsequently, Re-
spondent refused the Union's request to bargain
which led to unfair labor practice charges and cul-
minated in a Decision and Order 2 in which the
Board granted the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment and found that Respondent un-
lawfully refused to bargain in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act. Thereafter, on January 31, 1979, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued
its decision in this matter,3 wherein it denied en-
forcement of the Board's Order, set aside the Certi-
fication of Representative, and remanded the pro-
ceeding to the Board for hearing on Respondent's
objections in Case 7-RC- 13057. The Board accept-
ed the court's remand and, on May 18, 1979, issued
an Order Directing Hearing 4 which remanded the
issues raised by the objections for hearing before a
hearing officer from a region other than Region 7.
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 the
election held on July 3, 1975, and the Hearing Offi-
cer's report of January 3, 1980, recommending dis-
position of same. The Board has reviewed the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and
hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's findingss and
recommendations. 6
The election was conducted on July 3 1975, pursuant to a Stipula-
tion for Certification Upon Consent Election. The tally was: 59 votes for.
and 55 against, the Union There were no challenged ballots
2 Prestolite Wire Division. Eltra Corporation. 225 NLRB I (1976)
a Prestolite Wire Division v N. L.R.B., 592 F.2d 302.
'242 NLRB 407
251 NLRB No. 132
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, (UAW) and that,
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the said labor organization
is the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the following appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by the Employer at its facility locat-
ed in Rose City, Michigan; but excluding all
office clerical employees, plant clerical em-
ployees, technical employees, professional em-
ployees, confidential employees, foremen, as-
sistant foremen, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
s Respondent sought to adduce evidence of other alleged objectionable
conduct which it uncovered during its preparation for the remanded
hearing. The Hearing Officer rejected the proffered evidence because it
was irrelevant to the issues raised in the objections filed by Respondent
and was not shown to have been previously unavsailable to Respondent
We affirm he Hearing Officer's ruling but note that the said eidence
does not, in any sclent. disclose conduct which would warrant our setting
the election aside
Nor do we find merit in Respondent's argument that the Board abused
its discretion by not ordering a hearing on the objections initially. and
that such delay is prejudicial because of the frailty of memories and una-
vailability of some witnesses.
The Union moved for dismissal of Objections 3 and 4 based on Re-
spondent's lack of exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation
overruling them The Hearing Officer deemed himself lacking in authori-
ty to interpret the scope of the remanded hearing as excluding those ob-
jections from the hearing, and he considered, and recommended, overrul-
ing these objections on their merits. We agree that Objections 3 and 4 are
lacking in merit. However, we find merit in the Union's contention that
the absence of exceptions effectively removed Objections 3 and 4 from
further consideration herein and, accordingly, we grant the Union's
motion to dismiss them
In adopting the Hearing Officer's overruling of Objections 2 and 5
Member Penello does so for the reasons set forth in Shopping Kart Food
Market, 228 NLRB 1311 (1977), the principles of which he still adhere to
See his dissenting opinion in General Knit of California, 239 NLRB 619
(1978)
RESTOLTE WIRE DIVISION