W. Shanhouse Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 604 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
W. SHANHOUSE SONS, INC. and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
W. SHANH0USE SONS, INC. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 15-RC-627 and 15-RC-
649. August 13,1952
Second Supplemental Decision and Order
On April 1, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of
Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region.
On May 23, 1952, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Direc-
tion 2 in which it overruled the challenge to a ballot which was sufficient
to affect the results of the election, and directed that the ballot be
opened and counted. On June 2, 1952, the Regional Director, after
opening and counting the challenged ballot, furnished the parties with
a revised tally of ballots which showed the following election results :
Original
Tally
Challenged
Counted
Final
Tally
Approximate number of eligible voters----------- 77 77
Void Ballots----------------------------------- 0 0 0
Votes cast for Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, CIO-------------------------------- 36 0 36
Votes cast for United Garment Workers of
America, AFL-------------------------------- 0 0 0
Votes cast against participating labor organiza-
tions ---------------------------------------- 35 1 36
Valid votes counted----------------------------- 71 1 72
Unopened challenged ballot---------------------- 1 0
On June 10, 1952, the Regional Director notified the parties by tele-
gram that, in view of these election results, a runoff election was re-
quired under Section 102.62 of Board Rules and Regulations. On
June 14, 1952, the Employer filed with the Board motions in opposition
to runoff election and for oral argument. Neither of the unions
2 Not reported.
2 99 NLRB 267.
100 NLRB No. 96.
W. SIIANHOUSE SONS, INC. 605
herein, which were served with the Employer's motions, submitted
any contentions with respect thereto.
The Board, having duly considered the matter, affirms the Regional
Director's conclusion that a runoff election is required under the
present facts.' Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act provides:
... In any election where none of the choices on the ballot
receives a majority, a runoff shall be conducted, the ballot pro-
viding for a selection between the two choices receiving the largest
and second largest number of valid votes cast in the election.
(Emphasis added.)
Section 102.62 (d) of the Board Rules and Regulations provides:
... In the event two or more choices receive the same number
of ballots and another choice receives no ballots and there are no
challenged ballots that would affect the results of the election,
and if all eligible voters have cast valid ballots, there shall be
no runoff election. . . . (Emphasis added.)
The revised tally of ballots, set forth above, shows that "... none
of the choices on the ballot received [d] a majority ..."; thus a
runoff election is required, as plainly provided in Section 9 (c) (3).
Under the above-quoted provision in Rule 102.62 (d), in this precise
situation a runoff election would not be conducted only "if all eligible
voters have cast valid ballots."' The revised tally shows that there
were 77 "eligible voters," of whom 5 did not cast valid ballots. It
follows that, under this rule, a runoff election is not precluded. Ac-
cordingly, we shall deny the Employer's motion .5
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Employer's motion in opposition to
runoff election be, and it hereby is, denied.
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Order. a
8 The Employer's motion for oral argument is denied as the pleadings and the record in
the case, in our opinion , are adequate for a determination of the issue presented.
* Cf. United States Rubber Company, 83 NLRB 378.
5 We find no merit in the Employer 's contentions that the Board should not , in any event,
conduct a runoff here ( 1) because the original eligible employee complement of 77 has been
reduced to 57; and ( 2) because Section 9 ( c) (3) of the Act requires that the ballot in a
runoff election provide for the selection between the 2 choices receiving the largest and
second largest number of valid votes cast, and here there is no largest and second largest
number of votes (because there was a tie vote).