W. Shanhouse Sons, Inc.

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).