We will not refuse to bargain collectively with Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Warehousemen Local No. 597, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. We will, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer's operations at Case Street and Munger Street, Middlebury, Vermont, including shipping clerks and building maintenance employees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, managerial employees, office utility man, development supervisor, development and construction machine shop supervisor, raw materials processing suprvisor, production maintenance shop supervisor, area supervisor, shift foremen, summer seasonal employees, guards, and all supervisors, as defined in the Act. POLYMERS, INC., Employer. This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, if they have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions. Telephone No. 223-3300. APPENDIX A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (Case No. 1-RC-9190) POLYMERS, INC., EMPLOYER AND TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND WAREHOUSEMEN LOCAL NO. 597, A/W INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 15, 1966, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 1 of the National Labor Relations Board among the employees in the appropriate unit. After the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 124 eligible voters, 124 cast valid ballots, of which 73 were for and 51 were against the petitioner. There were no challenged or void ballots. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on December 16, 1966, issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled in their entirety, and that the Petitioner be certified. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 92-089-68-11 4. The following employees, as stipulated by the parties, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer's operations at Case Street and Munger Street, Middlebury, Vermont, including shipping clerks and building maintenance empolyees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, managerial employees, office utility man, development supervisor, development and construction machine shop supervisor, raw materials processing supervisor, production maintenance shop supervisor, area supervisor, shift foremen, summer seasonal employees, guards and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's Report, the exceptions thereto, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommendations.1 Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the lection, we shall certify it as the collectivebargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Warehousemen Local No. 597, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, has been selected by a majority of the employees employed by the Employer in the appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Dated, Washington, D.C. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, APPENDIX B-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (FIRST REGION) (Case No. 1-RC-9190) IN THE MATTER OF POLYMERS, INC., EMPLOYER AND TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND WAREHOUSEMEN LOCAL No. 597, A/W INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER REPORT ON OBJECTIONS Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, executed on September 28, 1966 and approved by the Regional Director on September 29, 1966, an election was held on November 15 among certain employees of the Employer. The Tally of Ballots cast at said election is as follows: Approximate number of eligible voters----. Void ballots... Votes cast for petitioner.. Votes cast against participating labor organization_. Valid votes counted... Challenged ballots.. Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots-- 124 On November 21, the Employer filed timely Objections to conduct of the election and conduct affecting the results of the election, serving a copy thereof on the Petitioner. The Objections allege the following: "1. The Board Agent in charge of the election made up the ballot box from a flattened cardboard box he had brought with him. He sealed the edges and corners with masking tape, but at no time was such masking tape initialled or otherwise marked so as to prevent its removal and replacement without indication thereof. 1 The Employer's exceptions in our opinion raise no issue of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director's findings and recommendations. 2. After each of the first two (2) balloting sessions, the Board Agent improperly sealed the ballot box slot for insertion of ballots in that the masking tape seal was signed by the Board Agent and representatives of the parties and affixed in such a manner as to permit access to the contents of the box without indication that the seal had been removed and replaced. "3. From shortly after the end of the second balloting session at 10:30 a.m. until the Board Agent returned to the Employer's premises shortly after 2:00 p.m. for the third balloting session, the Board Agent alone assumed responsibility for the custody of the improperly sealed ballot box and an unsealed number of unmarked ballots. No representative of the Employer was with the Board Agent during this time. For most of this time, the improperly sealed ballot box was left in the Board Agent's station wagon which was parked, unattended, on the streets of Middlebury, Vermont. "4. The Board Agent stated to the Employer that his station wagon was locked and he alone had the key while it was parked on the streets of Middlebury. However, it is common knowledge and a demonstrable fact that access to station wagons and other vehicles is simply whether the vehicle doors are locked or unlocked. "5. The foregoing constitutes serious irregularity in the conduct of the election which raises doubts as to the integrity and secrecy of the election and which is not in accordance with the strict standards imposed by the Board to insuré that its conduct of elections is not open to question." Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the undersigned has conducted an investigation and makes this his report thereon. Since all five numbered paragraphs of the Objections are interrelated, they will here be treated together. Investigation reveals: The facts underlying these Objections are not in dispute. They are described, without material divergence, by the Board Agent and the Employer as follows: The voting took place from 6:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. and from 2:30 P.M. to 3:30 P.M. at the Employer's Case Street location and from 10:15 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. at the Munger Street location, both in Middlebury, Vermont. At the end of both morning polling periods, the Board Agent sealed the ballot box, a cardboard carton supplied to all regions by the Board in Washington, with masking tape over the pre-cut slot for inserting the ballots on the top of the box, so that parts of this tape extended approximately one-half inch over the edges to the sides of the box where they adhered to the masking tape securing the seams of the box. The parties' observers, the petitioner's business agent, the Employer's engineering manager, all of whom had observed this procedure, and the Board Agent himself then signed their names on said tape but the signatures did not extend onto the box. The Board Agent then affixed several strips of scotch tape across said tape and over the signatures so that the scotch tape adhered to both the masking tape and to the surface of the box on each side of the masking tape. After the early morning session at Case Street, the Board Agent placed the box in the back of his station wagon and with the two observers in his car proceeded to the Munger Street location. The business agent and the engineering manager had also gone to the Munger Street plant. Since there was time before the scheduled opening of the polls at 10:15 A.M., all five went to a nearby diner for coffee where they stayed for approximately 30 minutes. During that time. the Agent's car was parked from 50 to 75 feet from the diner and was locked. The ballot box was in the locked car for from one-half to three-quarters of an hour. A leather brief case in which the Agent kept the supply of blank ballots was also left in the locked car. At Munger Street, the tape across the slot was removed by the Board Agent in the presence of the observers for the parties. There were no objective indications of tampering, but since the election, a company observer has stated that the masking tape came off "smoothly", in that no part of the surface of the box adhered to the tape as it was removed. After the polling period at Munger Street, the box was again sealed and signatures were affixed in exactly the same manner as had been done at Case Street. The Agent again placed the box in his car in the presence of the observers and drove to the Middlebury Inn (where he had a room) and parked the car at about 11:00 A.M. near the Inn, which is near the center of Middlebury. He placed a sweater over the box concealing it from view. He again locked the car, but took the brief case containing the blank ballots with him and went into the Inn. When he later went for a walk he left the brief case in his locked hotel room. At about 2:00 P.M., he returned to the car and drove to the Case Street plant for the afternoon polling period. Before the polls opened, he removed the seal from over the slot in the ballot box under the observation of the parties' observers and the other representatives as he had done at Munger Street. On no occasion prior to the ballot count was any suspicion voiced by anybody that the seal was or could have been tampered with between polling periods. Such suspicions were voiced for the first time during the counting of the ballots by the Employer's president.' They were subsequently repeated and formalized in a memorandum by the Employer's counsel submitted to the undersigned before whom counsel for the Employer made oral argument on December 13, 1966.2 The Employer presented no evidence that the box had actually been tampered with. It is hereby found that the ballot box was not tampered with. The Employer argued that the facts set forth above raise serious doubts as to the integrity and secrecy of the election and that the election should, therefore, be set aside because the possibility of irregularity existed. In support of the possibility of irregularity, he speculates that the locked car might have been entered either with false keys or with no keys; that the tape might have been removed without disturbing the signature and that ballots marked for the union might have been substituted for ballots which rejected the union during the absence of the Board Agent. He also argues that the Union's overwhelming loss of an election fourteen months previously and the fact that 12 to 15 ballots were sharply creased and similarly folded and that there were long runs of "yes" ballots during the count. The latter argument is entirely without merit. The Board Agent in the interests of secrecy and following a long regional practice prefolded the ballots in groups before he handed them out individually to the voters and there is nothing unusual in long runs of either "yes" and "no" ballots. Obviously there will usually be longer runs in favor of the winner. Whether the conjectures as to the car being entered and ballots exchanged amount to "the possibility of irregularity" within the meaning of Board precedents must be evaluated in the light of what the Board has held in decided cases, some of which are cited by the Employer.3 These cases clearly establish the principle advanced by the Employer than an election will be set aside without evidence of actual tampering, if desirable election standards have not been met or where other irregularities have occurred. In this case, however, the Board agent did maintain desirable election standards and there were no irregularities. The ballot box was sealed and unsealed in the presence of the observers and at all times kept in the Agent's custody in the interim periods between balloting. The blank ballots were at all times in the Agent's custody. When the box and the blank ballots were not in his immediate presence they were kept under lock and key. In no case cited by the Employer or uncovered by independent research has the Board set aside an election under such circumstances. The undersigned concludes that the Objections lack merit and recommends that they be overruled in their entirety and that Certification of Representative be issued to the Petitioner. ALBERT J. HOBAN, Director, Region 1, National Labor Relations Board, Boston, Mass. Dated at Boston Massachusetts, this 16th day of December, 1966. 1 The Employer declined to sign the certification on the Tally of Ballots. However, he disclaimed any aspersions upon the integrity of the Board Agent himself. 2 At this time, counsel for the Employer was asked whether he wished a formal hearing, but there being no relevant issues of fact in the case, counsel stated that he was not requesting formal hearing. In the presence of counsel, the undersigned personally examined the box which had been used at the election and the tape which had been applied at Munger Street and removed at Case Street. The tape binding the box was tight and there was no objection evidence of tampering. 3 General Electric Co., 119 NLRB 944; The Royal Lumber Co., 118 NLRB 1015; New York Telephone Co., 109 NLRB 788; Tidelands Marine Services, Inc., 116 NLRB 1222 and others. VI. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Hon. EDWARD V. LONG, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: The Commission's staff is preparing the answers to the questions in your letter of January 30, 1968, relating to the Freedom of Information Act. We shall endeavor to submit this information to you by February 29, 1968. Sincerely, Hon. EDWARD V. LONG, MANUEL F. COHEN, Chairman. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: In the absence of Chairman Cohen, I am replying to your letter of January 30, 1968, in which you asked to be provided with a list of materials which this Commission has made available pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a list of information which has not been made available since the enactment of that statute, two copies of the regulations adopted by the Commission to implement the provisions of that act and two copies of any Commission opinion in which the act is cited. As you know, pursuant to the Federal securities laws, this Commission is required to maintain a very large number of documents for public inspection and copying. The overwhelming majority of requests for records which the Commission has received since the effective date of the Freedom of Information Act has been for records subject to those provisions. Thus, I have been advised that during the 7-month period from July 1967, when the Freedom of Information Act became effective, through January 1968, nearly 4,700 separate requests for one or more records were processed by our public reference section concerning records which the Commission would have been required to make available even in the absence of that statute. While a few days delay occurred in some cases because the records requested were stored at the Federal records center or because the records were otherwise in use, in the vast majority of cases requests were filled within minutes after they were made. Since such records have for many years routinely been made available upon request to any person, no useful purpose would be served by an attempt to list or analyze the subject matter of these routinely filled requests. The accompanying memorandum of the Office of the General Counsel sets forth in detail those few requests for records that raised problems requiring a consideration and application of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. They have been handled primarily by the staff in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the rule adopted by the Commission to implement the Freedom of Information Act, two copies of which are enclosed. The rule permits the clerical employees in our public reference room to make available without inquiry or delay all records which are clearly required to be made available under the Freedom of Information Act. The clerical employees have been instructed to seek interpretive guidance from designated staff attorneys should there be a question under the rule whether a record requested is to be made public. Under the rule any person who has been refused access to a record may obtain an immediate ruling from the Commission's public information officer, and a final appeal to the Commission is provided by which a person may show either that the requested record is required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act or that it should in the Commission's discretion be made available even if the Freedom of Information Act does not require its disclosure. I am advised that our clerical employees have found it necessary to seek guidance from staff attorneys in only the relatively few cases set forth in the attached memorandum. The public information officer has been required to make a ruling on only one occasion and no member of the public has yet seen fit to bring a disputed ruling |