Southern Forest Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 837 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

SOUTHERN FOREST PRODUCTS
Southern Forest Products, a Division of Hammermill
Paper Co. and UBC, Southern Council of Industri-
al Workers United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
10-RC-10910
May 20, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING
HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election approved by the Regional Director
for Region 10 of the National Labor Relations Board
on December 1, 1976, an election by secret ballot
was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on
December 17, 1976, under the direction and supervi-
sion of the Regional Director. Upon the conclusion
of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, which shows that
there were approximately 94 eligible voters and that
91 ballots were cast, of which 24 were for and 56
against the Petitioner. There were 11 challenged
ballots, which are not sufficient to affect the results.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election.
Pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation of the
objections and on February 3, 1977, issued his
Report on Objections, in which he recommended
that the election be set aside and a new election be
held based on the Employer's statement in a letter to
employees that wages and benefits would be frozen
during the negotiations (if the Union were voted in)
which could last for many months or, in the
alternative, that a hearing be held with respect to the
issues raised by Objections I and 4, excepting the
issues raised by the "frozen wages" statement.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's Report on Objections and a
brief in support thereof.
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 duly considered the objections, the
Regional Director's report, and the Employer's
exceptions and brief, and is of the opinion that issues
IIn the absence of specific exceptions thereto, the Board adopts, pro
forma, the Regional Director's findings concerning Objections 2 and 3.
have been raised with respect to Objections I and 4
which may best be resolved by a hearing.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that a hearing be held before a
duly designated Hearing Officer for the purpose of
receiving evidence to resolve the issues raised with
respect to Objections I and 4, including the issues
raised by the allegation that the statement by the
Employer in the letter sent to employees on Decem-
ber 9, 1976, concerning frozen wages, interfered with
the election, and in particular any evidence respect-
ing the Employer's practice, history, and/or policy
concerning the granting of increases in wages and
benefits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing Officer
designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing
shall prepare and issue to be served on the parties a
report containing resolutions of the credibility of
witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to
the Board as to the disposition of said objections.
Within 10 days from the date of issuance of such
report, either party may file with the Board in
Washington, D.C., eight copies of exceptions thereto.
Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof on the
other party and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the Board
will adopt the recommendations of the Hearing
Officer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled
matter be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional
Director for Region 10 for the purpose of conducting
such hearing, and that the said Regional Director be,
and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof.
MEMBER MURPHY, concurring in part:
I concur in the decision to remand this case for
hearing on Objections I and 4 except insofar as a
hearing is directed on the allegation in Objection 4
concerning the Employer's letter of December 9,
1976, and its history of wage increases. In my view,
the single statement in the letter that there would be
no automatic wage increase if the Union were voted
in and that "[w]ages and benefits would be frozen
during the negotiations which could last for many
months" is not coercive, and the Employer's past
policy with respect to wage increases is irrelevant.
Accordingly, I would overrule this portion of the
objections.
229 NLRB No. 133
837