Colfor, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 1057 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

COLFOR, INC. 1057
Colfor, Inc. and International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultrual Implement
Workers of America, UAW, Petitioner. Case 8-
RC-11649
April 8, 1980
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS 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 elec-
tion conducted on March 22, 1979,1 and the Hear-
ing Officer's report recommending disposition of
same. The Board has reviewed the record in light
of the exceptions and brief and hereby adopts the
Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations.
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW, and that
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, the foregoing
labor organization is the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the following appropriate unit
for purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment:
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding quality control employees at the Em-
ployer's Melvern, Ohio, facility, but excluding
all office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
MEMBER PENELLO, concurring in the result:
I join my colleagues in issuing a Certification of
Representative, but I must disassociate myself from
their rationale.
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election. The tally was 66 for, and 52 against, the
Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots.
248 NLRB No. 139
When this case was first before us last year, I
dissented from my colleagues' decision to hold a
hearing on the misrepresentations alleged in Em-
ployer's Objections 2 and 3. I stated that I would
summarily overrule those objections under the
sound principles set forth in Shopping Kart Food
Market, Inc., 228 NLRB 1311 (1977). Inasmuch as I
agreed with my colleagues that there was no merit
in the Employer's other objections, I concluded
that I would "immediately certify the Petitioner
and allow it to proceed with the business of collec-
tive bargaining without further ado." Colfor, Inc.,
243 NLRB No. 76 (1979).
But much ado was to follow. A notice of hearing
was issued by the Regional Director, 2 days of
hearings were held before a Board hearing officer,
and a Report on Objections was subsequently pre-
pared and served on the parties. Thereafter, the
Employer filed with the Board 79 pages of excep-
tions and supporting arguments. Having reviewed
this material, my colleagues have now concluded-
1 year after the election was conducted-that no
objectionable misrepresentation occurred within
the meaning of Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc.,
140 NLRB 221 (1962).
In my opinion, the working men and women do
not vote for or against union representation on the
basis of the latest piece of partisan propaganda, and
therefore the protracted analysis of campaign mate-
rial required by the Hollywood Ceramics rule
furthers not one whit the goal of protecting em-
ployee free choice. Rather, the rule serves only to
delay and frustrate the effectuation of the employ-
ees' desires as expressed at the ballot box. See my
dissenting opinion in General Knit of California,
Inc., 239 NLRB No. 101 (1978). The instant case is
an unfortunate example. Had Shopping Kart been
the law of the land this past year, the parties could
have spent their time negotiating rather then litigat-
ing, and might well have bargained to an agree-
ment by now.
I had always thought that Congress established
this Agency some 45 years ago not for the purpose
of becoming enamored with the niceties of its own
rules, but for the purpose of encouraging the prac-
tice and procedure of collective bargaining. Per-
haps I was mistaken.
COLFOR, INC.