Resins, Solvents & Varnishes Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 12, 1977

227 N.L.R.B. 959 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

RESINS, SOLVENTS & VARNISHES CORP. 959
Resins, Solvents & Varnishes Corp . and Chicago Ink
Workers Union Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 13-RC-14115
January 12, 1977
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING, AND PENELLO
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 an
election held on September 3, 1976,1 and the Region-
al Director's report recommending disposition of
same. The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations.2
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Chicago Ink Workers
Union Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, and that, pursuant to
Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, said labor organization is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the following
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees working at the Em-
ployer's facility, now located at 82 East Main
Street, Chicago Heights, Illinois, but excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees,
laboratory technicians, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
CHAIRMAN MURPHY, concurring in part and dissent-
ing in part:
I agree with my colleagues' decision to adopt the
findings and recommendations in the Regional
Director's report insofar as it pertains to the second
objection raised by the Employer. However, I cannot
agree with their findings concerning the first objec-
tion.3 The questions raised by the Employer herein
concerning the alleged extended conversation in
Spanish between a voter and a union observer in the
polling area are, in my opinion, serious enough to
warrant an investigation into the matter .4 Therefore,
I would would remand this case for a full hearing so
that testimony may be taken to determine the nature
and extent of the conversation.
1 The election was conducted pursuant to a stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was. 6 for, and 5 against, the Petitioner;
there were no challenged ballots.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we pro forma adopt the Regional
Director's finding concerning Objection 2.
3 The relevant portion of the Regional Director's report is attached hereto
as an appendix.
4 See Milchem, Inc., 170 NLRB 362 (1968).
APPENDIX
Objection No. 1:
The Employer alleges that "during the course of the
election a Spanish-speaking' eligible voter appeared at
the polls and carried on a conversation in Spanish
with the Union's election observer. Despite being told
by the Board Agent in charge of this election that this
conversation should ceased [sic], the Spanish voter
and the observer continued to converse in Spanish."
In response to the Region's request, the Employer
stated that "during the course of the election an
eligible voter appeared at the polls and carried on a
conversation in Spanish with the observer. Following
the election, a supervisor of the Employer asked the
participants to this conversation, what had been said
in Spanish. According to the eligible voter, he asked
the observer if the observer knew how to vote. The
observer's version is somewhat different; he stated
that the eligible voter asked where was the paper of
the pencils with which to vote."
Based on the foregoing, assuming that the supervi-
sor above referred to would testify in accord with the
Employer's statement the undersigned deems such
alleged conversation to be innocuous, an inquiry and
possible response concerning the mechanics of the
election, and certainly without reference to any
choice the voter should make.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Objection 1 be
overruled.
227 NLRB No. 151