Continental Bus System, Inc.

CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. 599 CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM , INC.} and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, INC., Petitioner . Case No. 30-RC- 822. April 30, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISIONS ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' an elec- tion by secret ballot was conducted by mail during the period between January 6 and January 23, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the above- mentioned Decision. Thereafter a tally of ballots was fur- nished the parties, showing that of approximately 55 eligible voters, 2 voted for the Petitioner; 18 voted for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Locals Nos. 222, 16, and 17, AFL;' and 32 voted for the Amalgamated Association,of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Local No. 1468, AFL.4 There were 2 challenged ballots and 1 void ballot. On January 30, 1953, the Employer and Teamsters, respectively, filed objections to election and conduct affecting election and objection to conduct of election. Separate objections to conduc- tion of election were filed by Teamsters' Local 222 on Feb- ruary 2, 1953. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the foregoing objections and, on March 9, 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 or conduct affecting the results of the election and recommended that the objections be overruled and dismissed. Thereafter', the Employer and Teamsters filed timely exceptions to the report on objections; and, in addition, the Employer filed a petitionfoi reconsidera- tion and further hearing and a statement supplementing Employer's exceptions to report on objections to election aad petition for reconsideration. 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: I The name is hereby amended from Rocky Mountain Lines of Continental Bus System, Inc. It appears from the Employer's motion to reconsider and exceptions that the Employer's name should have been so amended at the hearing . However, we reject the contention of the Employer that the petition should be dismissed because it did not correctly name the em- ployer of the employees sought. 2Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions. $ Hereinafter referred to as Teamsters. 4 Hereinafter referred to as Amalgamated. 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Petition for Reconsideration In its petition for reconsideration the Employer contends that the unit finding in the instant case was erroneous because it differs from that in a previous case involving the same Em- ployer and employees-6 In that case the Board directed a Globe election among the same employees that are involved in this case, in order to determine whether they desired to constitute a separate unit or to be incorporated in a systemwide unit of employees of the Employer. In that election the em- ployees expressed a desire to constitute a separate unit, which the Board found to be appropriate under the circum- stances . Teamsters was certified as the representative of the employees in such unit and executed a contract for such employees. At the hearing in the instant case no labor organi- zation sought to represent these employees as part of a broader unit, and the parties stipulated that the unit found appropriate in the former case was appropriate in the instant case. Accordingly, we find no merit in the contention, now made for the first time by the Employer, that our unit find- ing herein is erroneous. The Employer also contends that the Board erred in find- ing in its Decision and Direction of Election herein that the Employer's 3-year contract with Teamsters was of unreason- able duration and so did not bar the petition herein. The Em- ployer moves that the record be reopened to permit the in- troduction of further evidence to support its contention that 3-year contracts are customary in its industry. All parties had ample opportunity at the hearing in this case to introduce all pertinent evidence on this issue and they were on notice from the Decision and Direction of Election herein that the evidence offered at the hearing on this issue was deemed by the Board insufficient to establish that 3-year contracts were customary in the industry. However, it was not until after the election was held and the results announced that the in- stant request for opportunity to put in further evidence on this point was first made. In view of these circumstances, we do not believe we would be warranted in reopening the hearing at this time.6 The Employer's petition for reconsideration and further hearing is therefore denied. Objections and Exceptions In their objections the Employer and Teamsters make the following contentions: (1) That the Regional Director erred in conducting the elec- tion by mail over the objections of the Employer and Teamsters, because the secrecy and integrity of the ballot could not be maintained in such an election and there was precedent for a manual election in the bargaining unit; (2) that the ballots 5 Continental Bus System, Inc., 84 NLRB 670. 6 We note, also, that the contract urged as a bar will expire, in any event , on May 16, 1953. CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. 601 were in the hands of the voters long enough to permit exertion of undue influence; (3) that the secrecy of the ballot was not maintained, in that some voters marked their ballots in the presence of others and the freedom of choice of voters was interfered with; and (4) that a number of ballots appeared to have been marked "with the same writing instrument and in the same manner."* The Employer and Teamsters urged that for all or any of these reasons the election should be set aside. In his report the Regional Director found no merit in any of the objections and recommended that they be overruled. The Employer and Teamsters excepted to all his findings, except those relating to objection (4), and to his recommendations. (1) In his report the Regional Director states that his deci- sion to conduct the election by mail was based on the fact that manual balloting would have involved holding the election at several different locations and would have required considerable travel on the part of the eligible voters and Board agents. He concluded that in view of the season of the year, and the possibility of adverse weather and road conditions, a repre- sentative manual ballot might not be obtained, and that a mail ballot would both insure a representative vote and result in substantial saving of time and money for the Govern- ment. On January 6, 1953, ballots were mailed to the 52 em- ployees appearing on the eligibility list. Two other ballots, later challenged, were mailed to employees claimed to be eligible by Teamsters, whose names did not appear on the original list. January 23, 1953, was set as the deadline for receipt of ballots in the Regional Director's office, and on that date the ballots were opened and counted in the presence of observers. Ballots were received from all persons appearing on the eligibility list. The Board has often held that the Regional Director has broad discretion in determining the method by which elec- tions 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.8 Nor does the fact that a manual ballot had been conducted previously in the unit preclude the Regional Director from conducting an election by mail. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Regional Direc- tor did not abuse his discretion under the circumstances of the instant case. (2) As to the contention that the ballots were in the hands of the voters for an unduly long time, the Regional Director found that an analysis of the mailing and return dates of the ballots of the 52 eligible voters showed that the total elapsed time between the date of mailing and the post-mark date of return was 326 days or an average of 64 days per ballot. He concluded, and we agree, that this is not unreasonably long. Absent a 7In addition, the objections reiterated the contentions made in the Employer 's petition for reconsideration, discussed in the text, above. BSouthwestern Michigan Broadcasting Company, 94 NLRB 30. 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD showing of specific abuses during the time that the ballots were in the voters' hands, there is no merit in this objection. (3) The Regional Director investigated allegations that a representative of Amalgamated suggested that the employees get together and mark their ballots and that a representative of Teamsters had called anumber of employees into Teamsters' office to mark their ballots. He found no evidence to support these allegations. While he found that one employee had marked his ballot in Teamsters' office, the employee stated that he did so out of the sight of other persons in the office. The Employer and Teamsters in their exceptions allege generally that secrecy of the ballot was not maintained and that the free- dom of choice of the employees was interfered with. In addi- tion, the Employer alleges that one employee voted his ballot in the office of Teamsters and the marked ballot was in plain view of several union representatives. The Employer also says that it has reason to believe that other such incidents occurred. Assuming that the incident alleged actually occurred, we find it insufficient to warrant setting aside the election. This isolated instance could not have affected the results of the election. The other general allegations of violation of secrecy, unsupported by any specific instances, we find insufficient to warrant the holding of a hearing or setting aside the election. Accordingly, we will overrule the exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections. As Amalgamated received a majority of the ballots, we will certify it as the representative of the employees. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for reconsidera- tion and further hearing herein be, and it hereby is, denied. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Local No. 1468, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of all bus operators employed by the Employer in its Rocky Mountain Lines Division, 9 exclud- ing all other employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act 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 con- ditions of employment. 9 The unit description has been changed from that in the Decision and Direction of Elections to correspond with the amendment of the Employer's name in this Supplemental Decision.