Watkins Brick Co.

500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WATKINS BRICK COMPANY and UNITED STONE & ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2457. December 22, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 18, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , among the employees in the unit found appropriate . Thereafter , a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that out of 45 voters , 23 cast valid votes for the Petitioner , 20 cast valid votes against representation, and 2 ballots were challenged . On September 25, 1953 , the Em- ployer filed timely objections to the conduct of the election and to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board ' s Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's objections and, on November 3, 1953 , issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections , in which he found that the objections raised no substantial and material issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election and recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the sole collective -bargaining agent for the employees in the unit . Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on objections. In its objections , the Employer alleged that the Employer was prevented by the Board agent who conducted the election from being represented by an observer of the Employer's own selection . The Employer admits that the Regional Director correctly found that the Board agent refused to permit it to use its vice president , treasurer , or office manager as an ob- server , but the Employer contends that the Board ' s policy of prohibiting persons closely identified with an employer from acting as the employer ' s observers should not apply when, as here , only such persons know all the employees of the Em- ployer eligible to vote both by name and by sight. Like the Regional Director , we find that these facts do not warrant a departure from our usual policy. Nor do we find relevant the fact that the Board agent failed thoroughly to explain that his refusal was in accord with the prescriptions made by the Regional Director pursuant to Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Employer excepts to the Regional Director ' s finding that the Board agent conducting the election adequately and properly explained the mechanics of the ballot to certain illiterate em- ployees, some of whom have informed the Employer that they now believe that they cast a "Yes" ballot when they desired to cast a "No" ballot . Like the Regional Director , we find the admissions of the Employer' s observer that the field examiner 107 NLRB No 110. MALONE FREIGHT LINES, INC. 501 carefully pointed out the method of marking the ballots and re- peated such instructions to each voter more reliable evidence that the field examiner adequately explained election processes than the hearsay evidence to the contrary. The Employer also excepts to the Regional Director's find- ing that there was no evidence that Edwards was intoxicated when he voted but that no material question is raised because the Employer's observer did not challenge Edwards on that ground at the time he came to vote. We agree with the Regional Director's findings, but would in any event find that the mere use of intoxicants by several voters would not warrant setting an election aside. 1 The Employer also contends that the field examiner im- properly permitted Young, an organizer for the Petitioner, to vote and cast a challenged ballot and that his being permitted to vote, in itself, exerted undue influence and had a coercive effect upon the voters in the election. Like the Regional Direc- tor, we agree that the field examiner properly permitted Young, who claimed to be a laid-off employee and who was, at least, a former employee, to cast a challenged ballot, despite his pos- sible status as a union official, and that the voting of such an official at the election did not exert undue influence, or have a coercive effect, upon the voters. 2 Accordingly, we will adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director, dismiss the Employer's objections, and certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative for the appropriate unit. [The Board certified United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of all production and maintenance employees, including the one truckdriver of the Watkins Brick Company, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, the brick burner guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.I 'A. Werman & Sons, Inc., 106 NLRB 1215. 2See Soerens Motor Company, 106 NLRB 1388 (presence as an observer of a union official). MALONE FREIGHT LINES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 32-CA-307. December 23, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On September 15, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, adopting the findings, 1106 NLRB 1107. 107 NLRB No. 116.