Star Baking Co.

STAR BAKING COMPANY ' , 835 =61. D. M. Morrison 62. S. J. Mowery 63. K. I. Peasley 64. A. M. Peck 65. B. P. Peter 66. L. M. Pizzuto 67. H. E. Powers 68. M. M. Probst 69. E. F. "Rossman 70. A. E. Royer 71. N. C. Ruggiers 72. R. H. Russell 73. M. H. Ryan 74. D. M. Schaffer 75. L. V. Shady 76. M. G. Shivery 77. R. E. Simcox 78. R. A. Smith 79. N. J. Spotts 80. S. E. Stover 81. I. B. Thomas 82. T. P. Tressler 83. G. M. Walters 84. H. L. Weishans 85. G. E. Willits 86. L. B. Young Star Baking Company and International "Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 146,1 Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-1289. December 13, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on June 13, 1957,2 an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 11, 1957, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with- a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 34 eligible voters, 14 cast votes for, and 14 cast votes against, the Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots. On July 15, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct of the election. On August 28, 1957, the Regional Director issued his report on objections in which he recommended that the election be set aside. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Petitioner objected to the election on the ground that, in mail- ing ballots to 14'employees, the Regional Director allowed insufficient time for returning such ballots. The Regional Director found no merit in this objection and recom- mended that it be overruled. As no exception has been taken thereto, we shall" adopt this recommendation and overrule the Petitioner's objection to the election. 1 The Board having been notified by, the AFL- CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi- cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this union is hereby amended. 2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 119 NLRB No. 11:L 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD However, in investigating the issues raised by the objection, the Regional Director found that one employee, Anthony Junta, sta- tioned at Pueblo, Colorado, who was eligible to vote by mail,' but failed to vote, was, through inadvertence, not furnished with a ballot and did not have an opportunity to vote in the election. The Re- gional Director concluded that Junta's rights as a voter were prej- udiced and that the inconclusiveness of the election results might be due to his failure to receive a ballot. Accordingly, the Regional Director recommended that the Board, on its own motion, direct a new election in order to afford all eligible employees an opportunity to cast ballots in the election. The Employer excepts to this recommendation on the grounds that (1), in the July 11, 1957, election, 28 of the 34 eligible voters in the unit cast ballots and that, therefore, a representative election was held which reflected the desires of the employees in the unit, and (2) there is no evidence that Junta did not receive notice of the election or that he would have voted had he received a ballot. As to (1), it is the responsibility of the Board to establish the proper procedure for the conduct of its elections, which procedure requires that all eligible voters, not merely a representative number, be given the opportunity to vote. It is particularly important to remedy the failure to discharge this responsibility where, as here, the vote of the employee who failed to receive a ballot could have affected the results of the election. As to (2), even if we assume that Junta knew of the election, and that he therefore had an opportunity to vote in person, we still would find that this was not adequate op- portunity to vote. Junta was stationed at Pueblo, Colorado, 45 miles from the polling place at Colorado Springs. It was the judgment of the Regional Director, concurred in by the parties, that it was not feasible for him to vote manually and that he should be polled by mail.. In view of this, we believe that any opportunity that Junta may have had to vote in person would not satisfy the Board's election standards. We, therefore, find no merit in the exceptions of the Em- ployer and overrule them. We shall, on our own motion, in accord with the Regional Director's recommendation, set aside the election and direct a new election.4 [The Board set aside the election held on July 11, 1957.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] MEMBERS RODGERS and BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental `Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election. 3 The Recional Director states that the mail-voting procedure was adopted pursuant to an understanding with the parties. 4 Alterman-Big Apple, Inc., 116 NLRB 1078, and cases cited therein. We find no merit. in the Employer's contention that the Alterman case can be distinguished on the facts from the instant case. %