Stiefel Construction Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 925 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of STIEFEL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 2-R-5676
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 8, 1946
On October 29, 1945, the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Direction of Election 1 in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that certain designated employees of Stiefel Construction Cor-
poration, Mineville, New York, herein called the Company, constituted
an appropriate bargaining unit and directing that an election be held
among them to determine whether they desired to be represented by
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0., or by Building and
Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. Pursuant to the
Direction of Election, and in accordance with the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board and a stipulation among the parties that the ballot-
ing should be conducted by mail, the Regional Director for the Second
Region conducted the election, and on November 26, 1945. issued and
duly served on the parties a Tally of Ballots, which discloses the
results of the election as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters--------------------------------- 45
Void ballots--------------------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast for United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0----------------- 13
Votes cast for Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New
York, A. F. of L--------------------------------------------------- 1
Votes cast against participating labor organizat ions -------------------- 0
Valid votes counted-------------------------------------------------- 14
Challenged ballots----------- ---------------------------------------- 0
On November 28, 1945, the A. F. of L. filed objections to the conduct
of the election, alleging, in substance, (1) that a majority of craft
employees in the appropriate unit did not vote through a misunder-
1 64 N. L R. B. 565.
65 N. L. R. B., No. 165.
925
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
standing that the election did not concern them; (2) that a represent-
ative number of eligible employees did not participate in the election;
and (3) that, due to a clerical error, the ballot positions of the com-
peting unions were reversed to the prejudice of the complainant.
On December 6, 1945, the Regional Director issued and duly served
on the parties his Report on Objections, finding that objections (1)
and (3) were without merit and recommending that they be overruled,
but questioning whether an election wherein only 31.1 percent of
eligible employees participated was representative in character and
recommending that a hearing be held upon the issue raised in objec-
tion (2). No exceptions were filed by any of the parties to the
Regional Director's Report on Objections. Doubting that a hearing
would be helpful in the matter, the Board, on December 19, 1945,
issued and duly served upon the parties an order to show cause on or
before December 29, 1945, why the Board should not overrule the
objections of the A. F. of L. and certify the C. I. O. as the bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit.
On December 27, 1945, the C. I. 0., in response to the Board's order,
filed a request, asking that the Board overrule the objections of the
A. F. of L. and certify the C. I. O. as the bargaining representative
of the employees concerned.
On December 29, 1945, the Company filed objections to the action
proposed by the Board's order, urging (1) that a majority of em-
ployees had not cast a ballot in the belief that, by refraining from
voting, they might defeat both labor organizations participating in
the election and (2) that the resulting failure of a majority of em-
ployees to cast a ballot rendered the election not representative and
therefore invalid. In support of its allegations, the Company sub-
mitted a petition purporting to be signed by 30 employees, setting
forth the above and requesting a new election.
In every election conducted by Board agents, it is our concern that
each employee eligible to vote be afforded an opportunity to cast a
secret ballot if he so desires. No compulsion is placed upon any
employee to require him to exercise his right to vote. Pre-election
conferences among the parties are arranged by the Regional Office for
the express purpose of facilitating the voting procedure. In most
cases, elections are conducted by manual ballot. In the instant case,
balloting, by consent of the parties, was conducted by mail, a method
of balloting which affords the voter secrecy in designating his choice
upon the ballot, and enables him to vote at his leisure.
Implicit in the common consent of all parties to the conduct of an
election by mail are their several assents to abide by the results of such
balloting. The notice of election clearly reads : "A majority of the
valid ballots cast will determine the results of the election." The
only purpose of an election is to resolve the majority issue, and if an
STIEFEL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 927
election is fairly conducted and employees eligible to vote are freely
permitted to do so, the results of the election must be deemed con-
clusive, if the vote cast be a "representative" vote. What constitutes
a representative vote depends upon the circumstances in each case.2
In the absence of any showing that any employee eligible to vote was
denied the right to vote or prevented from exercising his free choice
in voting, or other unusual circumstances, the reasons for neglect to
vote are not material to the issue. We find that no unusual circum-
stances are present in this instance. We find that the 31.1 percent
vote cast in the election among the Company's employees is a repre-
sentative vote. We find no merit in the objections of the A. F. of L.
to the conduct of the election or in the objections filed by the Company
in response to the rule to show cause. The objections are hereby
overruled.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., has been designated and selected by a majority of all mechan-
ics repair first class, all shift foremen, underground foremen, timber-
man foremen, scraper operators, boss mechanic, explosives foreman,
electricians, and drill runners of Stiefel Construction Corporation at
its.MineviIle, New York, operations, but excluding level foremen and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., is the
exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
2 See Matter of Spring City Foundry, 11 N. L R. B. 1286; Matter of New York Handker.
chief Company, 16 N. L R. B. 532; Matter of Butler Specialty Company, 29 N. L. R B.
430; Matter of The Central Dispensary & Emergency Hospital, 46 N. L. R. B. 437; ef.
Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 1 N L. R B . 172 , Matter of Weinberger Sales Co., Inc,
28 N. L R. B . 154; and Matter of Northwest Packing Co , 65 N. L. R. B. 890.
679100-46-vol 65-60