United States Rubber Co.

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 11, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-,239 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER May 5,1949 On March 3, 1949, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board herein on January 6, 1949: an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region. Thereafter, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally showed the results of the election to be as follows : Approximate number of eligible voters----------------------- 18 Votes cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 11, AFL-------------------------------------- 9 Votes cast for United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 44, CIO------------------- 9 Votes cast against participating labor organizations ---------- 0 No objections to the election were filed. On April 5, 1949, the Petitioner filed a motion with the Board requesting that a run-off election be held. The Intervenor, URW, CIO, filed a motion oppos- ing the holding of a run-off election and requesting that the petition be dismissed. In support of the motion the Petitioner cited the re- cent J. I. Case decision.2 In that case a majority-of the Board di- rected a run-off election where neither of the labor organizations participating in a "Globe" election had obtained a majority of the valid votes cast. There, however, the "no union" choice had obtained some votes in the original election. In the instant case both par- ticipating labor organizations received an equal number of votes, and the choice "neither union" received no votes. In identical circum- stances, prior to the amendment of the Act, the Board refused to hold 3 Matter of United States Rubber Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 17. Matter of J. I. Case Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 969. 83 N. L. R. B., No. 52. 378 UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 379 a run-off election because in such a situation, where there are no votes of a third choice to redistribute, there is no basis for expecting that a run-off will produce results at a variance with the original vote.3 -We see nothing in the amended Act which requires that we now reach a different result in this type of case 4 Accordingly, the Petitioner's motion for a run-off election is hereby denied.-5 As the petitioner has not obtained a majority of the votes cast, we shall dismiss the petition herein. ORDER IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certi- fication of representatives of employees of United States Rubber Com- pany, Los Angeles, California, filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 11, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBERS REYNOLDS and GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. B Matter of Inter-Ocean Steamship Company, 69 N. L R. B. 561. 4The legislative history of the run-off provision in Section 9 (c) (3) of the amended Act clearly indicates that the purpose of this provision was to change the Board 's practice by requiring that if a run-off is held "no union" shall be accorded a place on the ballot if it receives the first or second highest number of votes in, the original election , whether or not it received a plurality of the original votes. See Senate Report No . 105 on S. 1126, p. 12, and Senator Taft's statement, Cong. Rec. April 23 , 1947. Nothing in this legislative history suggests that Section 9 (c) (3) compels the Board to conduct a run-off election where such run-off shows every likelihood of being futile. 5 Cf. Matter of Bauer-Schweitzer Hop & Malt Co., at al., 79 N. L. It. B. 453.