Seattle Bakers' Bureau, Inc.

270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SEATTLE BAKERS' BUREAU, INC. and CONGRESS OF IN- DUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Petitioner . Case No. 19-RC- 1186 . April 21, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICA- TION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,t an election by secret ballot was conducted during the period be- tween January 21 and January 30, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the above-mentioned decision. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that 251 voted for the Petitioner, 224 voted for the Intervenor, 2 5 voted against the participating labor organizations, and there were 18 challenged ballots. On February 5, 1953, the Intervenor filed objections to the conduct of the election and conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the Intervenor's objections and, on February 27, 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 the conduct of the election and conduct affecting the results of the election and recommended that the objections be overruled and dismissed: Inasmuch as the challenged ballots were of themselves insufficient to affect the results of the election, he made recommendations with respect to the disposition of the challenged ballots conditioned upon the Board's arriving at a result in its disposition of the objections which would make the challenged ballots material. Thereafter, the Intervenor and the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on objections and, in addition, each petitioned the Board to reconsider its Decision and Direction of Election herein Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: Petitions for Reconsideration The petitions for reconsideration filed by the Intervenor and Employer raise no issues which warrant modification of the Board' s Decision herein. Accordingly, the petitions are denied. Objections and Exceptions In its objections the Intervenor contends, in effect, that the Regional Director's failure to conduct the election at the plants 1101 NLRB No. 196, as amended by order of January 8,1953 (not published in printed volumes of Board decisions). =Bakers Union Local No. 9, AFL. 104 NLRB No. 32. SEATTLE BAKERS' BUREAU, INC. 271 of the employer-members of the Seattle Bakers' Bureau, Inc., the Employer in this case, and his adoption, instead, of a voting procedure which gave the employees the option of voting by mail or voting manually at the Regional Office of the Board had the toylowing prejudicial consequences: (1)Fifteen mail ballots were not counted by the Regional Director because they, arrived after the deadline for receipt of mail ballots, although within the time allowed for manual voting. (2) Many other ballots mailed by the Regional Director to employees were not delivered because incorrectly addressed. With respect to these objections, the Regional Director's report discloses the following: , 8 On January 19, 1953, notices of election were mailed to all 46 member-employers of Seattle Bakers' Bureau, Inc., stating that ballots would be mailed to each employee whose name was supplied by the Bureau, that the ballots would have to be received at the Regional Office not later than 2 p.m. on January 28, 1953, and that any eligible voter not voting by mail could vote by appearing in person at the Regional Office on January 29 and 30, 1953. On January 21 ballots were mailed to employees of members of the Bureau whose bakeries were located outside of Seattle, and on January 22 ballots were mailed to all other employees on the eligibility list submitted by the Bureau to addresses supplied by the Bureau. With the ballots, instructions were mailed containing the same in- formation as the notices of election sent to each member of the Employer concerning the alternative methods of voting. Four- teen ballots were returned to the Regional Office by the post- master because of improper addresses. Better addresseswere obtained for 8 of these, and they were remailed. Of the 14 pers'dtis whose ballots were originally wrongly addressed, 9 voted" in the election either by mail or manually. At 2 p.m. on January 28, 419 mail ballots, including challenged ballots, had been received at the Regional Office from eligible voters. Fifteen additional ballots were received after the established deadline for receipt of mail ballots. Seven of the fifteen persons from whom these ballots were received voted manually on January 29 or 30. As the parties could not reach agreement on a proposal by the Board agent that the ballots of the remain- ing eight persons should be opened, these ballots were not opened and counted. Of the 539 employees to whom ballots were mailed, 497, 2 or 92 percent, actually voted either manually or by mail. Deducting from both these figures the 12 voters receiving mail ballots who were determined by the Regional Director in his rulings on challenges to be ineligible,4 the ratio is 482 out of 539 or 91 percent. a Four additional votes were cast by persons to whom no ballots were mailed because they were not on the eligibility list supplied by the Bureau. 4The Regional Director 's rulings on challenges are hereby adopted, in the absence of ex- ceptions by the parties . In addition to the 12 challenged voters who received ballots, the Regional Director found that 4 who received no mail ballots were also ineligible . Challenges to 2 other ballots were overruled. 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD From these facts the Regional Director concluded, in effect, that there was no adequate reason shown for setting the election aside, and he recommended that all objections be overruled. The Intervenor contends in its exceptions that the use of the mail ballot was not justified, that eligible voters were prevented from voting because of confusion generated by the method of voting, that the 41 eligible voters who did not vote in the election might have voted had the election been held manually, and that their votes might have changed the results of the election. The Employer did not file separate exceptions , but adopted those of the Intervenor. The Board has often held that the Regional Director has broad discretion in determining the method by which elections shall be conducted, and may in the exercise of his discretion conduct an election by mail ballot, even where not specifically authorized to do so.5 In the instant case, as admitted by the Intervenor in its exceptions, there were involved in the election 46 different plants within a radius of 20 miles. As stated above, 91 percent of the voters determined by the Regional Director to be eligible actually voted. This ratio compares favorably with that applicable to Board elections generally. The mere speculative possibility that the remaining 9 percent might have voted if the election had been held at the plants does not warrant a finding that the voting procedure in the instant case was improper.6 Moreover, the total number of persons who were found not to have received any snail ballots, or whose ballots were not counted because received too late by the Regional Office, could not in any event exceed 13. Even if we assume that all 13 persons voted, or would have voted, for the Intervenor, the election result would not be affected., In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, we find no abuse of discretion in the Regional Director's adoption of the voting procedure employed in the instant case, and we will therefore overrule the exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections. As the Petitioner received a majority of the ballots, we will certify it as the representative of the employees. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions for reconsider- ation herein be, and they hereby, are denied. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Congress of Industrial Organizations has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of the member bakeries of Seattle Bakers' $Southwestern Michigan Broadcasting Company, 94 NLRB 30. 6Red Wing Potteries, Inc., 88 NLRB 1234. ?Nor would the result be affected by counting the 2 ballots as to which challenges were overruled by the Regional Director. Accordingly , we shall not direct that these 2 ballots be opened and counted. DERENSON'S 273 Bureau, Inc., employed as foreman, dough mixers , oven men, moulder men, machine men, benchhands, control room men, jobbers, bakers, helpers, excluding guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, machinists, engineers , clericals, office employees, driver salesmen, special delivery drivers, over-the-road transport drivers, delivery men, semitruck and trailer drivers, loaders, checkers, wrappers, delivery men for retail bakeries, stockmen and flour blenders, assistant stockmen and flour blenders, men in charge of miscellaneous help, miscellaneous help, floorladies, assist- ant floorladies, machine operators, experienced girls, be- ginners, and all other employees, as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining , and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive representative of 'all the employees included in the foregoing unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. DERENSON'S and LOCAL 576, FURNITURE WORKERS, UP- HOLSTERERS AND WOOD WORKERS UNION, INDEPEND- ENT. Cases Nos. 21-CA-1353 and 21-CA-1408. April 22, 1953. DECISION AND ORDER On December 30, 1952, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceed- ings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [ Mem- bers Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed., The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the cases, and hereby adopts the t The Respondent filed a motion with the Board alleging that the Union is not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act by virtue of the fact that Gus Brown has not filed an affidavit as an officer of the labor organization and requesting an investigation of Brown 's status as business representative . An administrative investigation of this matter , however , has not disclosed information showing that Brown is an officer of the Union, and we are adminis- tratively satisfied that the Union is, and has been, in compliance at all times material. In its brief the Respondent renewed several motions for dismissal made at the hearing which were denied by the Trial Examiner. TheTrial Examiner 's rulings are affirmed, and the motions are hereby denied. 104 NLRB No. 38.