National Truck Rental Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 838 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, including the Union's objections,
the-report on objections, and the-Union's exceptions, the Board finds:
The Union's principal contention, in effect, is that, for the purpose
of defeating the Union's organizing activities, the Employer, prior
to the election, contracted out work previously performed by em-
ployees in the bargaining unit, and that, in so doing, the Employer
coerced, intimidated, and discouraged the employees to such extent
that they could not exercise a free choice at the election. Prior to the
election, on August 12, 1954, the Union filed an unfair labor practice
charge against the Employer based upon the same matters involved
in the instant objections case. This charge was dismissed by the
Regional Director on August 16,1954. A timely appeal was taken from
this dismissal. Thereafter, on October 11, 1954, the General Counsel
sustained the Regional Director's dismissal.
As the identical allegations before us were made the subject of the
Union's unfair labor practice charge, which on appeal was dismissed
by the General Counsel, we shall, in accordance with our usual proce-
dure, overrule the Union's contentions.'
On the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record herein,
we find that the objections and exceptions of the Union raise no sub-
stantial or material issue with respect to the election in this case.
Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections, as the challenges
are insufficient to affect the results of the election, and as the tally of
ballots shows that a majority of the valid ballots has not been cast
for the Union, we shall, pursuant to the Regional Director' s recom-
mendation, certify the results of election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL, and that the said labor organization is not
the exclusive representative of the above employees.]
1 Westchester Broadcasting Corporation , 95 NLRB 1057.
NATIONAL TRUCK RENTAL COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL 639, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND DISTRICT LODGE No. 67, INnm-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL (LOCAL 1486), PETI-
TIONERS . Case No. 5-RC-1397. November 9, 1954
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification
of Representatives
On July 23, 1954, pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and
Second Direction of Election issued by the Board in the above-entitled
110 NLRB No. 120.
NATIONAL TRUCK RENTAL COMPANY, INC. 839
case,' an election was conducted under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director among employees in the amended appropri-
ate unit. Following the election, the Regional Director issued and
served upon the parties a tally of ballots, which shows that of the
24 ballots cast in the election 12 ballots were cast for the Petitioners,
11 ballots were cast against the Petitioners, and 1 ballot was declared
void and not counted.
On July 28, 1954, the Employer filed objections to the election, in
which it contended that the ballot held void, which was a "No" vote,
was in fact valid, and for the first time questioned the validity of
another "Yes" ballot counted as valid, alleging that it had identifying
markings upon it. On August 4,1954, after investigation, the Regional
Director issued and served on the parties his report on objections to
second election, finding the objections without merit. On August
12, 1954, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
report, and on August 18, 1954, the Petitioners filed a reply to the
exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the Employer's objections to the election,
the Regional Director's report thereon, the Employer's exceptions, and
the Petitioners' reply. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds as follows :
The official counting of the ballots took place on July 23, 1954, im-
mediately following the election. At no time during the counting
process did either of the parties or their representatives object to the
actions of the Board's election agent with respect to his ruling on the
one questioned ballot held void, or his counting of the remaining bal-
lots found valid, or otherwise. On advice from the Employer's at-
torney, however, the Employer's election representative declined to
sign the tally of ballots, copies of which were duly served on the
parties.
On Monday, July 26, 1954, the next working day following the elec-
tion, the Employer's attorney requested, and was granted, permission
to reexamine the ballots at the Regional Office, in the presence of the
Regional Director.
On July 28, 1954, the Employer filed its objections, contending (a)
that the "No" ballot held void by the Board's agent was in fact valid;
and (b) that, in the event that this ballot, found void by the Board
agent because it contained an identifying mark, were for the same
reason found invalid by the Board, another counted ballot marked
"Yes" must now be found invalid because it also contained an identify-
ing mark.
We have examined the ballot found void by the Board agent and
agree with his finding. We have also examined the other ballot to
which the Employer's objections call attention. Member Rodgers
1 108 NLRB 1349.
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
holds that it is unnecessary to rule on the validity of this ballot, find-
ing that, since the Employer failed to challenge or otherwise to ques-
tion the validity of any ballots at the time they were counted, the Em-
ployer's so-called objections, based solely on its subsequent and belated
reexamination of the ballots, constitute a post-election challenge, and
are therefore untimely? Chairman Farmer and Members Peterson
and Beeson disagree with the latter policy as applied to these circum-
stances, and would entertain an objection to both ballots and consider
the merits of the objections. However, they would find that the ballot
marked "Yes," to which the Employer filed the belated exception, is in
fact without any identifying mark, and is therefore valid. For the
reasons variously stated, the Board hereby overrules the Er4ployer's
objections,' and certifies the Petitioners jointly as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Local 639, International Brotherhood of
'Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
and District Lodge No. 67, International Association of Machinists,
AFL (Local 1486), as the designated collective-bargaining representa-
tive of all employees engaged in maintaining, repairing, and servicing
motor vehicle equipment at the Employer's automobile and truck
rental establishments in the District of Columbia, and at the Washing-
ton National Airport, including auto and truck mechanics, body and
fender men, tiremen, washers, porters, servicemen, and helpers ; but
excluding office employees, guards, watchmen, and working foremen
and other supervisors as defined in the Act.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
2 Oppenheim Collins & Co., 108 NLRB 1257.
3 In view of our decision, we deem it unnecessary to consider the other contentions
made with respect to the issues herein raised. The Employer's request for oral argument
on its exceptions is denied, as in our opinion the record clearly set forth the positions
of the parties.
EDWIN D. WEMYSS, AN INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A COCA-COLA BOTTLING COM-
PANY OF STOCKTON and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 439, AFL and STOCKTON BEVERAGE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
SOMETIMES KNOWN AS STOCKTON BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO
THE CONTRACT. Case No. 20-CA-626. November 10, 1954
Determination and Order on Respondent 's Motion
On January 27, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent had formed,
1102 NLRB 586.
110 NLRB No. 134.