General Tube Co., 441 (1963)

DECISION AND ORDER

Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, issued a complaint dated December 11, 1962, against General Tube Company , herein called the Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair 141 NLRB No. 42.

442 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.

Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the Union was and is the exclusive representative of certain employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit certified on October 19, 1962, by the Regional Director, and that Respondent thereafter unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union.

The Respondent's answer, filed on December 20, 1962, admits certain jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint but denies the commission of unfair labor practices.

All parties to this proceeding thereafter entered into a stipulation of facts and requested that the proceeding be transferred directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and Decision and Order. The requests state that the parties have waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and to the issuance of an Intermediate Report. The parties also agreed that their stipulation and certain specified documents constitute the entire record in this case.

On January 22, 1963, the Board granted the parties' request to transfer the case to the Board. Briefs were thereafter filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondent. Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, the Board' makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Michigan, at all times material herein, is and has been engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of tubing, seat belts, and related products at its plant located in Sturgis, Michigan. During the calendar year 1961, which period is representative of its operations during all times material hereto, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its Sturgis,

   Michigan plant, goods and materials valued in excess of $500,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000 were transported and delivered to its plant directly from points located outside the State of Michigan and in the course and conduct of its business,

   Respondent manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $500,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 '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 [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].

   were shipped from said plant to points located outside the State of Michigan.

   The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.

   2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAIV), AFL-CIO, and Employees Group Association are labor organizations as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act.

   3. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On March 30, 1962, the Respondent, the Union, and the Employees Group Association, entered into, and the Regional Director approved, an agreement for consent election in the following unit:' All production and maintenance employees of the Company's Sturgis, Michigan, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, executives, engineers, professional employees, guards, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.

      The parties specifically agreed :

      [T]he determination of the Regional Director shall be final and binding upon any question, including questions as to the eligibility of voters, raised by any party hereto relating in any manner to the election, and provided further that rulings or determinations by the Regional Director in respect of any amendment of any certification resulting therefrom shall also be final. [Emphasis supplied.] In addition, the agreement provided that either party could file objections to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election, and, if objections were filed, the Regional Director would conduct an investigation and report thereon. The agreement then stated :

      The method of investigation of objections and challenges, including the question of whether a hearing should be held in connection therewith, shall be determined by the Regional Director, whose decision shall be final and binding. [Emphasis supplied.] Pursuant to the above agreement, an election by secret ballot was conducted April 3, 1962, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director. Thereafter, objections having been duly filed and considered, pursuant to a report on objections and direction of new election issued by the Regional Director, dated June 8, 1962, a rerun 2 General Tube Company, Case No. 7-RC-5250 ( not published in NLRB volumes).

      election by secret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director on August 21, 1962, between 3 and 4 p.m. Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that 65 valid votes were cast, of which 33 were for the Union, 32 were for the employees Group Association, and 2 were challenged. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an appropriate investigation. On September 28, 1962, the Regional Director issued a report on...