Textron, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 83 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

BOSTITCH, DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC.
Bostitch, Division of Textron , Inc. and Miscellaneous
Warehousemen, Drivers and Helpers Local 986,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case 21-RC-13422
April 16, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On January 29, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 21 issued his Supplemental Decision and
Order Directing Hearing in the above-entitled
proceeding in which he ordered a hearing to resolve
the issues raised in the Petitioner's objection to the
election.' Thereafter, pursuant to National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Employ-
er filed a request for review of the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision, contending that
the objection should have been dismissed without a
hearing.
By telegraphic order dated February 22, 1974, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the Regional Director's Supplemental
Decision and the Employer's request for review and
makes the following findings:
The Petitioner's objection alleges that just prior to
the cutoff date for eligibility, the Employer hired an
employee in the unit found appropriate herein, on
the express condition that he cast his ballot in the
election against the Petitioner. The Regional Direc-
tor found that Emil Depillo, manager of the
shipping, repair, and service department, hired a new
I The tally of ballots for the election showed that of approximately 14
eligible voters 14 cast valid ballots , of which 7 were for , and 7 against, the
Petitioner There were two challenged ballots and no void ballots. The
83
employee, Manuel Oliveros, approximately 50 days
before the election.
The Petitioner presented several witnesses who
alleged that Oliveros told them on more than one
occasion that he had been hired by Depillo with the
understanding that he would vote against the Union
in the upcoming election. Oliveros denied that he had
told anyone that he was hired on such a condition or
that he discussed the Union with Depillo. Likewise,
Depillo denied ever talking to Oliveros about the
Union or making Oliveros' employment conditional
upon an antiunion vote. On the basis of the
foregoing, the Regional Director concluded that a
hearing was necessary to resolve the issue raised by
the objection. We disagree.
As urged by the Employer, we find that the
Petitioner's objection is not supported by sufficient
probative evidence to warrant a hearing. While there
is a conflict in the testimony as to what Oliveros told
his fellow employees, the resolution of such conflict
in favor of Petitioner's witnesses would afford an
insufficient basis to establish that in fact Oliveros
was hired by Depillo on the condition that he vote
against the Union. Moreover, as Depillo has denied
that he discussed the Union in hiring Oliveros, there
is no probative affirmative evidence to support the
objection. Accordingly, the objection is hereby
overruled.
As the tally of ballots shows that a majority of the
valid votes have not been cast in favor of the
Petitioner, we shall certify the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
votes have not been cast for Miscellaneous Ware-
housemen, Drivers & Helpers Local 986, Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, and that said labor
organization is not the exclusive representative of all
the employees, in the unit herein involved, within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
Regional Director sustained the challenges to the two ballots and no request
for review was filed with respect thereto.
210 NLRB No. 20