Laconia Malleable Iron Co, Inc.

LACONIA MALLEABLE IRON COMPANY, INC. Order 161 Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. LACONIA MALLEABLE IRON COMPANY, INC. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2057. July 12, 1951 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on May 2, 1951, in the above proceeding, an election by secret ballot was held on May 17, 1951, under the direction of the Regional Director for the First Region, among production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Laconia, New Hampshire, plant, in the unit heretofore found appropriate. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally showed that, of approximately 115 eligible voters, 55 cast ballots for the Petitioner, 54 cast ballots against the Petitioner, and the ballot of 1 voter was challenged. The challenged ballot is determina- tive of the outcome of the election. The Challenged Ballot During the counting of ballots, on May 17, 1951, the Board agent in charge declared void a ballot marked as follows : The "Yes" box is untouched; slightly to the left of the "No" box, and running through the top left-hand corner thereof, is a line which the parties agree is a checkmark; entirely within the "No" box are several pencil marks of irregular shape and intensity. The Employer disagreed with the determination of the Board agent and challenged the ballot. On May 22, 1951, the Employer duly filed its objections to the conduct of the election and conduct affecting the results of the election, in which it contended that the Board agent in charge of the election erroneously refused to count as valid the ballot of the challenged voter and requested that the Board declare the challenged ballot valid and dismiss the petition or, in the alternative, direct a new election in the afore-mentioned unit. On May 29, 1951, the Regional Director, having duly investigated the matter, issued and duly served on the parties his report on ob- jections, in which he concluded that the challenged ballot was valid and recommended that an amended tally of ballots be issued, showing 95 NLRB No. 20 162 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 55 votes cast for the Petitioner and 55 votes cast against the Petitioner and that the petition therefore be dismissed. On June 4, 1951, the Petitioner duly filed its exceptions to the Regional Director's report on, objections, in which it requested that the Board declare the challenged ballot- void and that it certify the Petitioner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for the employees in the appropriate unit. _ Conclusions The Board's decision in Ebco Manufacturing Company (88.NLRB 983) establishes the rule that an identifying mark on a ballot in a Board-conducted election voids the ballot whether or not the mark in question establishes the identity of a voter, so long as it is a.mark which may serve to reveal the identity of the voter. In reaching the conclusion that the ballot in question here was valid the Regional Director recognized this rule, but noted that in the Ebco case, which. involved a marking much more readily decipherable than that involved here, the Board indicated that in voiding a ballot because of markings it must appear that the mark was made deliberately and not inad- vertently. The Regional Director concluded, apparently because of the amorphous character of the markings in this case, that. the mark ings were not deliberately made and that the Ebco decision is, by its own terms, not. controlling. We have personally examined the challenged ballot, and are unable to conclude that the markings are of such a character as to compel only the conclusion that they were inadvertently made. Admittedly, such a possibility exists ; but our concern for preserving the secrecy of the ballot in elections conducted by this Board requires that we permit no opportunities for identification of a voter. Because the markings may have been deliberately made, and may have served to reveal the identity of the voter, we find that the ballot is void. As the tally of ballots revised in accordance with this finding shows that the Petitioner, has secured a majority of the valid votes cast in th6 election; we shall certify the Petitioner as the exclusive repre- sentative.of the employees in the appropriate . unit.. `Certification of Representatives IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Steelworkers of 'America, CIO,. has,been designated- and selected, by a majority of the Employer's production and maintenance"-.employees at' its Laconia, New . Hamp- sh e, plant, including employees in the hard iron rimming .'and' inspection department, but excluding office clerical employees, pro=. fessional employees, watchmen, the shipping clerk and.foreman. of KELLER FISHING AND PACKING COMPANY : 163 the';finishing, and soft iron inspection department ; the flight crew foreman ; the pattern , castilig, core making, furnace, hard iron trim- . ring and inspecting, annealing, grinding, yard labor and maintenance department foremen, and the molding department foreman and as- sistant ; foreman and other supervisors, within the meaning of the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the At, the aforesaid labor organization 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. FELLER FISHING AND PACKING COMPANY'and ORCAS ISLAND CANNERY LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 1767, CIO and INTERNATIONAL As- SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LocAL LODGE No. 239. Cases Nos. 19-RC-714 and 19-RC-784. July 12, 1951 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon.separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Howard A. McIntyre, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and. are hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, .the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4.:O:reas Island Cannery Local Industrial Union No. 1767; CIO, hereinafter called CIO, the Petitioner in Case No. 19-RC-714, seeks to represent a .unit of production and maintenance employees at. the Employer's Deer" Harbor, 'Orcas Island, Washington, fish. cannery.2 ' Fishermen and Allied Workers Division, International Longshoremen 's and -ware- housemen 's Union , Local No . 3-51, moved to 'intervene at the hearing . As this labor grganWgtign !was. not ,in. compliance 'with ' the -filing requirements , of'Section 9 of the Act ntl;;thn,ti,me;of,,the:hearing, and'has no contractual . relationship, with , the Enrployer, the hearing officer correctly denied the motion . Brewer & Brewer Sons . Inc.; 85 NLR$• 387. ' In its petition , CIO excluded machinists ; however, at the hearing , CIO took the same, position as in Columbia River Packers Association, Inc., et al., 94 NLRB 1303 , and seeks to represent a plant-wide unit. 95 NLRB No. 21. 961974-52-vol. 95-1.2