Progressive Brass Foundry Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 963 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

PROGRESSIVE BRASS FOUNDRY CO., INC. 963
tally does not indicate that the results of the election have been de-
termined in the manner noted, the Board will, upon being advised by
the Regional Director, give consideration to the disposition of the
issues raised by the objections and the Petitioner's and Employer's
exceptions to the Regional Director's report thereon
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of employees Becker, LeGrand, Latka,
Reeves, Roseberry, Martin, Bennett, and Valentino, and serve -upon
the parties a revised tally of ballots, and issue a certification of
representatives.
[The Board ordered that the above-entitled matter be referred to
the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region for disposition.]
MEmsuR MuinooK took no-part in the consideration of the_ above
Supplemental Decision, Direction, and Order.
herein ruled valid have been counted. See Hoffman Hardware Co.; 112 NLRB 982.
Accordingly , the Board expressly reserves herein the disposition with respect to all other
recommendations of the Regional Director as contained in his report , and all exceptions
filed by the parties not specifically treated herein , until such time as the Regional Director
serves his revised tally of ballots.
Progressive Brass Foundry Co., Inc. and Local Union 84, Inter-
national Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North Amer-
ica, A. F. L., Petitioner. Case No. O-RC-74553. November 10,
1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of July 11, 1955,
an election was conducted on August 9 among the employees in the
unit found appropriate, in which 10 votes were cast for the Petitioner,
11 were cast against it, and 2 votes were challenged. A tally of ballots
to this effect was duly served upon the parties. Within the following
5-day period allowed by Section 102.61 of the Rules, on August 15,
the Petitioner filed with the Regional Director and served upon the
Employer a telegram reading as follows :
We hereby file objection to the conduct of the election and con-
duct affecting the results of the election in the above named case.
Board permitted collusion between company and other union.
Bill of particulars will be filed in a few days. Copy of telegram
to company.
114 NLRB No. 149.
387644-56-vol . 114-62
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 19 the Petitioner filed with the Regional Office and served
upon the Employer its "Particulars of Objections to Election" setting
out in detail the conduct complained of. On August 26 the Regional
Director issued his report on challenges and objections, in which he
found that the challenges had merit but that the objections did not
comply with said Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
requiring that objections be filed during the 5-day period following
an election and contain a "short statement of reasons therefor." Cit-
ing Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc., 113 NLRB 879,'the Regional
Director found that the objections were not properly before him for
consideration on the merits, and recommended that they be dismissed.
Subsequently, in a letter to the Board which is in the nature of ex-
ceptions to the report, a copy of which was sent to the Employer, the
Petitioner alleges that, in filing a telegram during, and particulars
after, the 5-day period, it relied upon telephone advice of an unidenti-
fied Board attorney, hence the Board should consider its objections on
the merits.
The Board has reviewed the objections, the Regional Director's re-
port, and the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations. Like the Re-
gional Director, we find that our decision in Don Allen Midtown Chev-
rolet is controlling here. The requirement of reasonable specificity in
filing objections, as set down in the Board's Rules, is a fundamental
procedure essential to fairness and dispatch in disposing of election
issues. Moreover, as early as April 1953, in Mission Appliance Corpo-
ration, 104 NLRB 361, the Board made clear what it regarded as
compliance with the Rules in this respect. We are not persuaded that
the alleged erroneous advice received from an unidentified Board
agent is sufficient ground for relaxing the requirements of the Board's
published Rules.
As we have overruled the objections to the election and have found
that the challenges have merit, and as the tally of ballots shows that
the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in
the election, we shall issue a certification of results to that effect.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots-was not
cast for Local Union 84, International Molders & Foundry Workers
Union of North America, A. F. L., and that the said labor organiza-
tion is not the exclusive representative of the journeymen molders and
coremakers, their apprentices, and helpers at the Employer's Brooklyn,
New York, plant.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the :above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
'.t