Lykens Hosiery Mills, Inc.

In the Matter of LYKENS HOSIERY MILLS, INC., EMPLOYER and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 4-RC-331 D SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION ORDER AND SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION January 19, 1950 On May 10, 1949, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election an election was held under the direction and supervision of the Re- gional Director for the Fourth Region. Upon completion of the elec- tion, the parties were furnished a Tally of Ballots. The Tally showed : Number of eligible voters__________________________________ 89 Number of votes cast ------------------------------ -------- 88 Votes cast for Petitioner__________________________________ 43 Votes cast against Petitioner_______________________________ 44 Valid votes counted_________________________________ _____ 87 Challenged ballots_________________________________________ 1 The Petitioner filed objections to Conduct of Election, a hearing was held, a Report on Objections issued, and exceptions to the Report timely filed by the Employer. Thereafter, the Board ordered the 1 challenge investigated; a report by the Regional Director was issued; exceptions thereto were filed and in a Supplemental Decision and Direction 2 the Board ordered this challenged ballot to be opened and counted, reserving for subsequent determination the issues raised by the objections. The Supplemental Tally which was issued after the opening of the challenged ballot shows : Number of eligible voters__________________________________ Number of votes cast_________________________________r_____ 88 Votes cast for Petitioner___________________________________ 44 1 82 NLRB 981. 2 Issued November 21, 1949. 88 NLRB No. 50. 238 LYKENS HOSIERY MILLS, INC . 239 Votes cast against Petitioner------------------------------- 44 Valid votes counted---------------------------------------- 88 With respect to the objections filed by the Petitioner the Board now finds : . The objections allege, inter alia, that employee Emma Hunter was not permitted to vote at the election. The facts developed at the hearing on the objections indicate that Hunter, an employee and an eligible voter, was erroneously omitted from the eligibility list. On the day of the election Hunter presented herself at the voting place at the designated time, but was not permitted to vote because her name was not on the eligibility list. When the error was discovered later that day, an employee was dispatched by the Board representa- tive to have Hunter appear at the voting booth and cast a ballot. The messenger was intercepted by Lipton, a representative of the Employer; although Lipton was informed of the purpose of the errand, he ordered the employee to leave the plant because she was not employed on the shift then working. Consequently, Hunter was not notified that she would be allowed to vote. As the result of the Employer's interference an eligible voter was not permitted to vote. As the Supplemental Tally indicates, Hunter's vote could have been determinative of the outcome of the election. We shall therefore set aside the election conducted herein a and shall direct a new election among the employees in the appropriate unit,4 who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the issuance of this Second Direction of Election.5 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ordered that the election of May 10, 1949, conducted among the employees of Lykens Hosiery Mills, Inc., Lykens Pennsyl- vania, be, and it hereby is, set aside. SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than 3In view of our disposition of the objection based on the Hunter incident we need not pass upon the other objections raised by the Petitioner. ' The unit described in our decision , supra, footnote 1. 6 The Petitioner requests that the same eligibility date be used in this election that was used in the previous election, held 8 months ago. However, we perceive no reason for departing from our usual practice in determining voting eligibility in this proceeding. The request is therefore denied . Special Machine and Engineering Company, 85 NLRB 1332 ; Gary Enterprises, Inc., 86 NLRB 431. 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 75 days from the date of this Second Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the original Decision and Direction of Election herein, who were employed during the payroll period imme- diately preceding the date of issuance of this Second Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off,. but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre- sented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Textile Workers, Union of America, CIO.