The Cudahy Packing Co.

In the Matter of THE CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY and UNITED PACKING HOUSE WORKERS, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 194 Cases Nos. C-650 and R-208 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES August 19, 1940 In the above-entitled proceedings the National Labor Relation's Board, herein called the Board, issued on November 4, 1939, a Decision, Order, and Direction of Election,' on November 16, 1939, an Order and Amendment to Direction of Election,' on February 10, 1940, a Supplemental Direction of Election,' on March 7, 1940, an Amend- ment to Supplemental Direction of Election,4 and on May 8, 1940, a Second Supplemental Direction of Election.' In said Second Supple- mental Direction of Election the Board directed that an election by secret ballot be conducted on May 24, 1940, among certain employees of The Cudahy Packing Company, Kansas City, Kansas, a party to these proceedings, herein called the Company, to determine whether they desired to be represented by United Packing House Workers of America, Local Union No. 10, of the Packing House Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, a party to these proceedings, herein called the United, or by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 574, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, a party to these proceedings, herein called the Amalgamated Local, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. On May 23, 1940, the Amalgamated Local filed a protest to the conduct of the election directed herein and requested that said election be held at another time and place. On the same date the Regional Director overruled this protest and denied this request, and on May 28, 1940, the Board issued an order affirming the Regional Di- rector's action in this regard. 1 17 N L 12 B 302 '17N L R B 350 3 20 N L R B 324. 4 21 N 1. R B 216 '23 N.L R.B 658 26 N. L. R. B., No. 81. 749 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the Second Supplemental Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 24, 1940, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Missouri). Eligibility of employees to vote ,in the election, was established at the polls by,the execution 'by voters of certain affidavits prepared:and furnished to them by the Board for such purpose.' In all cases the executed affidavit was delivered into the possession of the Board prior' to the casting of the ballot. On May 28, 1940,,the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 2, as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties an Election Report; and on'Jl ne 3, 1940, duly issued and served upon them an Amendment to Election Report. In his Election Report, as 'mended,'th'e Regional Director reported the following results, of the balloting: . • 1. • •: -Total ballots cast --------------- I ________ ------------- 881 Total, ballots challenged---------' __ ______ 8 , „Total blank ballots ------------ ______________ 0 Total void'ballots-------------------------------------------- 3 Total valid 'votes cast------------ ----------------- ---- -870 'Votes cast FOR -United•Packing House Workers of America, Local Union No. 10, of the Packing House Workers Organ- „ izing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations --,;------------------------------------ 813 AFFIDAVIT,,. - ' 1 Tlie undersigned , being first 'duly sworn , upon oath deposes and says ., I make and execute this affidavit to establish my eligibility to vote in an election to be held among the employees of The Cudahy Packing Company, Kansas City, Kansas, pursuant to the Second Supplemental Diiection of Election by the' National Labor Relations Board in the matter of The Cudahy Packing Com- pany and United Packing House Workers Local, Industrial Union No )194 (to appear on the ballot as Local Union No. 10 of the Packing House Workers Organizing Committee), and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Ldcal 5741 Intervener, Case No R-208 My Hamel' ------------------------------------- . I - ---------------------------------------------------------- My address is-------- --------- ----------- -------------------------------------- Mv clock number is------------------ -------------- -- (a) I am a production 'or maintenance employee of the Cudahy Packing Company at the Kansas City, Kansas , plant, and worked during the payroll period ending May 4, 1940, as a ----------- ----- in the !_!_Department , OR (h) I am a production or maintenance employee of the Cudahy Packing Company at the Kansas City, Kansas, plant , being a ; _______________ in the ---------------- Department , but did not work during the payroll period ending May 4, 1940, because ' Iwasill .• I was,on vacation I was then temporarily laid off (Laid off less than 90 days before May 4„ 1940) Exact date of layoff, if known -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- I have not quit or been discharged for cause since May 4, 1940. I am not a foreman , assistant foreman, straw boss, or forelady, nor was I so employed during the payroll period ending May 4, 1940 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of May, 1940 ------------------------------ i The affidavit was as follows THE CUDAHY, PACKING COMPANY., , ,^ 75 1 Votes cast FOR Amalgamated Meat Cutters and. Butcher ,Workmen of North America, Local 574, affiliated with. the, American Federation of Labor -------------- ----------- 19 'Votes cast for NEITHER United Packing House Workers of America , Local Union No. 10, of the Packing House Work-; ers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the, Congress of - Industrial Organizations , nor Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 57,4, affili- ated with the American Federation of Labor- _ _ ' _ _ _ : 38 On June 1, 1940 , the Company .filed herein, its Objections to 'the, conduct of the election and to the Election Report, as amended, .to- gether with an affidavit of one Edward H. Powers ,in support thereof. On June 7, 1940, the Amalgamated Local filed herein, ;its Objections to the conduct of the election and to the Election Report, , as amended. On June 19 , 1940, the,Regional Director issued a Report on Objec-, tions respecting the afore-mentioned .Objections of the Company, and, likewise a Report on Objections respecting the afore -mentioned Ob- jections of the Alamgamated Local ' copies of which reports , were duly, served upon , all the parties. In these reports the- Regional Director' stated that he, investigated the various matters set forth ; in the Ob- jections of the Company, and of the . Amalgamated Local,' reported, upon the facts and other matters, ascertained as, a result of such in-, vestigation , and recommended -to ,the Board ,that it overrule said Ob- jections in their entirety. , The Company in its Objections to the conduct of the ballot 'and to . the Election Report, as amended, , makes 13 enumerated ,obj ectiop s. The Amalgamated Local in its Objections to the conduct of the ,ballot and the Election Report,, as , amended, in, substance makes four.,ob,- jections. We have considered the said Objections of the ,Company and of the Amalgamated Local and, we are of the opinion that the above-mentioned recommendation of,the Regional Director , should bey accepted.. Neither obj ector has made a sufficient showing ,warranting. the , Board in withholding effect from the election, and ,the results thereof. There is no satisfactory showing of any matter , raising; or, presenting a substantial or material issue with respect , to,the conduct of the ballot or the Election Report, , as amended. , , , The Company challenges as erroneous assumption the, report of, the Regional Director that , at least 873_ voters who east , ballots,in the election were eligible to participate therein under the terms governing the election, and contends that not more than 400„of those .who,cast ballots were eligible to participate , in.the,, election. . We: exclude as, immaterial to the issue , for reasons apparent, the 11 ballots which, were challenged or void; we likewise exclude the 12 ballots :of employees, in the Wholesale Market, Department, who by the terms ,of , the Second Supplemental Direction .of Election, were ineligible to, vote,in the election , and we , assiune, for ; the purposes of this, Supplemental . 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Decision and Certification of Representatives , that said 12 ballots were cast for the United . However, except for such 23 ballots, we see no reason why the ballots cast, as reflected in the election results, were not those of eligible voters. The Company made no proof or showing that the ballots were not those of eligible voters, nor has any other party done so. The Company stated in its Objections that it was deprived of the opportunity to establish its contention that not more than 400 voters were eligible to vote, because subsequent to the election the Regional Director refused to permit the Company to make and take a list of the names and clock numbers of employees who had voted, as shown by the affidavits of eligibility submitted by these voters to the Board . We approve the Regional Director 's action as an approrpiate means to safeguard the secrecy of the ballot. In out- afore-mentioned Decision , Order, and Direction of Election we found that the Company, by various acts therein mentioned , including "acts of assistance to the P. H. W. U. [Packing House Workers Union of Kansas City , a party to proceeding] and obstructive of the United," had interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Although we there issued an order directing the Company to cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and to take certain action in aid of such order and as a means of removing and avoiding the consequences of such practices , the Company has not complied therewith . Because of the nature of the election, in which 813 out of approximately 870 ballots cast were for the United, to have permitted the Company to make and take a list of the names of those employees who participated in the election, as contained in their affidavits of eligibility, would be to place in the Company's possession a document identifying substantially the group of its em- ployees who are adherents of the United , or at least rendering such group of employees suspect of such adherence, and thus to expose employees in such group to acts of employer interference , restraint, and coercion of the kind previously committee by the Company. The Regional Director 's action in not permitting the Company to make and take a list of the names of those voting did not prejudice the Company . He offered the Company the opportunity of having made, in the presence of agents of the Board and the other parties, a comparison of the names of employees eligible to vote in the election, as shown by the Company 's pay roll of May 4, 1940 , or other employ- ment records , with the names on the affidavits, and, also , the oppor- tunity of examining the affidavits and other Board records of the election for the purpose of determining the authenticity of the affi- davits and the propriety of the conduct of the election in general. The Company previously refused to submit to the Board its pay roll and other employment records . However, had it availed itself of THE CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY 753 this opportunity, the Company could have established thereby, if such was the fact, the ineligibility of voters other than the asserted 400 to cast ballots. The Company, however, refused to do so, on the ground that by producing its pay roll and employment records for purposes of such a comparison it would "waive its position" in certain proceedings had in an appeal then pending before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.? In those proceedings the Company had appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, directing the Com- pany to produce for purposes of the election and other procedures herein, a copy of its pay roll and employment records, as previously requested of it under a subpoena daces tecum issued by the Board. We are of the opinion that, under the circumstances presented, the unwillingness of the Company to avail itself of the procedure offered to it by the Regional Director to establish its contention was and is without legal justification.' We conclude that the objection of the Company to the conduct of the election and the Election Report, for- the reason, allegedly, that not more than 400 eligible voters cast ballots in the election, should be overruled. We would so conclude, in so far as our affirming the Election Report is concerned, for another reason. Assuming, as the Company contends, that only 400 eligible voters cast their ballots, still, in view of the results of the election, the United would have obtained a majority of the valid votes cast. We conclude further that the objection based upon' the ground that employees in the Wholesale Market Department were permitted to vote in the election should be, and hereby is, sustained,, and the report of the Regional Director upon the results of the election will be modified accordingly. For such purpose solely we shall assume that the 12 ballots of these persons were all cast for the United. The Company and the Amalgamated Local in their respective Ob- jections object to the election and the results thereof on the ground that the United interfered with the conduct of the election and prevented a fair election, in that, in substance, it engaged in election- eering at or within 30 feet of the polling place, forced and otherwise coerced employees into entering the polling place or into the line of voters waiting to enter the polling place, used automobiles to bring voters to the polls, and had "C. I. O. [United] workers [throng] ... the sidewalk from the door of the Cudahy Packing Company to the voting place, lining their own men up and excluding others." The Amalga- mated Local further states that with respect to these matters that the agents of the Board who conducted the election "permitted" ?The Cudahy Packing Company vs. National Labor Relations Board, 118 F. (2d) 295 (C C. A 10) a See generally New York Handkerchief Manufacturing Company v . N L. R. B , 114 F (2d) 262 (C C. A. 7), enrg Matter of New York Handkerchief Manufacturing Co and International Ladies Garment Workers Union Local No. 76, 16 N. L R. B. 532. 754 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL' LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD electioneering by the United and' "knew of,and encouraged" the use of force or `other coercion by the United in bringing employees to the polling, place. - The Company offered, in support - of this objection the verified statement of one Edward H. Powers, an attorney-at-law at Kansas City,' Kansas;91 contained in the afore-mentioned affidavit submitted by the Company with. its Objections, that "the C. I. O. [United] had a string of men from Cudahy's gate along Kansas Avenue to the, voting place, directing the men as they came'out of the plant along the line to the voting place." In his reports on Objections, the Regional Director reported that in connection with the, investigation which he made he requested the Company and'the Amalgamated Local to furnish statements or names of persons having knowledge of the matters upon which the aforesaid objection, as well as, the other objections, in general, was-based; that neither the,,Company nor- the `Amalgamated Local made available any information in response to these requests; that counsel for' the Company took the position' that the alleged'-action of the United above mentioned was apparent to agents of the Board at 'the election, and confirmed, by the above-mentioned affidavit of Powers; that the Amalgamated- Local informed agents of the Board who investigated the various matters that the persons from whom information could'be had were- certain international representatives of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher'Workmen of North America in various cities throughout the United-States. However, the Regional Director did proceed to make an investigation of and report' upon the matters Ion which the objection above mentioned was based. With regard to the alleged electioneering by the United at or within 30 feet of the polling place; he'reported'that none had, occurred at the polling place and that he and other agents of the Board at the polls would so attest; that none was observed by agents of the Board on any of the "several occasions when they left the polling place and circulated'in the neighborhood adjacent thereto; that the United was interrogated about the 'matter and informed' the Board 'that because of a boycott of the election instituted by the Amalgamated Local, 10 it had informed' employees leaving the'Company'plant, which was located more than' 300 feet from the polls, that the election was being conducted, but denied having used any force or' other coercion in connection there- with or' otherwise. The Regional Director' stated that 'no' person reported or made protest to agents of the'Board during the conduct of - the 'ballot regarding "the alleged electioneering activity of' the United'. " As regards the alleged compelling of employees to vote e This appears from The Martindale- Hubbell Law Directory , Volume I, 72 Ed., 1940, p 302. 00 The Regional Director reported that on the date of the election the Amalgamated distributed leaflets stating that "The So-Called Election That Is to Be Held Today Is, In Our Opinion , A PHONEY ELEC- TION - and is UNFAIR To Our Members and Friends ! DO NOT VOTE In This Election Today! Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America." THE CUDAHY PACKING. COMPANY 755, the Regional Director reported that if any employee, was forced into. the line of, voters such incident must have occurred more, than,,300; feet from the polling place;,that on the 'several occasions,when he, and, other' agents of the Board walked, about, in the vicinity of the polls, he and they observed no such activity; that none was called to the attention' of agents of the Board during. the conduct, of the election,' nor to the attention of police, officers of the Kansas, .City. Department of Police, who were in attendance at and'in,the vicinity of the polls; that in response to interrogation by agents,of the Board the United stated that it had merely asked employees. to-vote, but denied. using force or other, coercion in connection therewith. ^ As regards transporting voters, to the polls in, automobiles` the United stated to the Regional Director that this had' been done.. With respect to the purported thronging by the. United of the sidewalk, from the gate of the Company's plant to, the polling place, ",lining their .own men up and excluding others," the, Regional Director reported that at certain times during the.day; namely, before.working hours; during the lunch • period and • after. working, hours, • a line of employees seeking to vote passed' between the -plant gate and, the polling ' place; that the United did not' have representatives along this line directing people to the polling place, within. a ,reasonable. distance thereof; that if the United had representatives at any point. along. this line directing people. to the, polling place, such fact, if -true, was not' called to: the. attention, of Board 'agents;;and-that the United denied to agents, of the Board making inquiry thereof that they made any effort to line up workers for. the purpose 'of: voting) Finally, as to the Amalgamated Local's allegations that Board, agents "knew of," "permitted" or "encouraged" certain-of the, afore-mentioned acts attributed to the United, ,the Regional Director reported, :in addition to the foregoing, that he and each of the.other agent's of the Board' who were present at the election deny • each such allegation; that the ^ alleged acts of 'the United., if they, occurred,' were , entirely, unknown to him and such other, agents of, the, Board, and, were 'not: during the election called to their attention •or:,to the attention of: other'impartial persons present at and' near.the polling'place. ,:,, i . No showing has been made by, the Company; or the Amalgamated Local, nor has the investigation conducted-by the Regional ;Director otherwise disclosed facts'or'evidence, warranting a reasonable! belief as, to the'posaibility of the occurrence of activity by the United interfering. with 'or preventing employees from.freely expressing -their desires-foria collective bargaining,representative'in the .election:which,-was held.' The possibility of a denial of freedoin'to choose'a collective bargaining representative' in an election' had, should appear reasonably certain, especially where the denial is alleged to have resulted from activity of a lawful labor organization which the employer has illegally opposed, 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD before a hearing upon objections to the election be directed. We hereby overrule the above-mentioned objection of the Company and the Amalgamated Local. We' note particularly that there was no im- propriety in the United transporting eligible voters to the polling place. The Company and the Amalgamated Local object to the election and the results thereof on the ground that agents of the Board ins charge of the election, by their own acts, and apart from any alleged acts of the United, conducted the election, or permitted it to be con- ducted in such manner as to influence voters to cast ballots in favor of the United or to deny them a free choice of a bargaining representative. It is averred that certain employees who were not members of the Amalgamated Local were permitted to enter and leave the polling place prior to the time set for the opening of the polls; that the polling place was changed by the Regional Director from one originally con- sidered by him to one located in a building which was within 200 or 300 feet-of the headquarters of the United and which was occupied by an employer "under C. I. 0. organization" ; that police officers were kept within the polling place and thereby prevented by agents of the Board from stopping the "misconduct" of the United ; that the Regional Director "occasionally came into the polling place and ostentatiously called one of the police officers, Captain Beatty, aside and entered into consultation with him from time to time with the evident purpose of influencing the voters by making them believe that the police and police department were on the side of C. I. 0. [United]"; that an agent of,the Board at the polling place, one Johnson, in three alleged statements, "expressed his favor of the C. I. 0. [United] and opposi- tion to others in the voting place." With respect to the foregoing objection the Regional Director reported as follows: About one-half hour before the opening of the polls agents of the Board and other persons engaged in conducting the election entered the polling place to prepare for the day's balloting. Eligible voters who appeared at the polls formed a line extending from within the polling place to 100 feet outside. However, no election official assumed his station nor was any vote cast prior to the time set for the opening of the polls. The polling place was not "changed" by the Regional Director, but was one selected previous to the election in preference to another under consideration. This and no other place had been advertised in the notice of election. The, site of the polling place was approved by the Company' s local plant superintendent prior to the election, and was selected because of its proximity to the Company's plant. While the headquarters of the United were within 300 feet of the polling place, they were THE CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY 757 beyond the polling place enroute from the gate of the Company's plant to the polls. In contrast, the office of the Amalgamated Local was and is across from the plant gate and readily within sight of all persons passing from the plant to the place where the polls were located. The agents of the Board exercised no authority to direct the activity of police officers stationed at or near the polling place during the election. No protest was made in the course of the ballot- ing against any acts or conduct of agents of the Board or police officers." The alleged statements of Johnson, save one to the effect that "the A. F. of L. [Amalgamated Local] did not come to the elec- tion because they knew they were licked and didn't want to vote," were not made.12 No showing has been made by the Company or the Amalgamated Local, nor has the investigation conducted by the Regional Director disclosed facts or evidence warranting a reasonable belief as to the possibility that, through action or because of non-action of agents of the Board, interference with or prevention of the employees from freely expressing their desires for, or influence of employees in their choice of, a collective bargaining representative occurred in ' the election which was held. The fact, if it was a fact, that certain employees unaffiliated with the Amalgamated Local entered and left the polling place, prior to the time set for the opening of the polls does not demon- strate that the employees who thereafter voted were denied an opportunity thereby to choose a statutory representative, or were influenced in their choice of such representative. The Regional Direc- tor's selection of the polling place, as above stated, was approved in due course by the Company through its agent and, in any event, we do not think that the situs of the polls supports the objection. We have previously ruled on a similar objection by the Amalgamated Local.13 The mere allegation, in substance, that agents of the Board prevented police officers from stopping alleged "misconduct" of the United, and "ostentatiously" spoke with Captain Beatty, in the absence of verified particularization of fact, or other showing and ii The Regional Director has submitted a letter from Captain Beatty, appended to the Report on Objec-, tions of the Company , in which Captain Beatty stated that no one requested the services of police officers stationed near the polling place , that the police officers in attendance went inside the building in which the polling place was situated during intermittent heavy rain , but otherwise "remained in the street and along the sidewalk in the vicinity of the polling place", and that his conversation with the Regional Director was of a general nature. 12 The Regional Director appended to this Report an affidavit of Johnson in which Johnson states over his verification that lie did not make the alleged statements , with the one exception noted , and as to that, the Regional Lirector reported that Johnson stated that he did not recall making this statement but that he might have done so in conversation with Powers when no voters were present. 13 As stated above, on May 29, 1940, the Board issued an order affirming the Regional Director 's action overruling the Amalgamated Local 's protest of May 23 , 1940, to the conduct of the election and its request that said election he held at another time and place 323429-42-vol. 26-49 758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sufficient specification of fact, cannot be taken as warranting a hearing on the objection. We think a strong showing of reasonable prob- ability should be made before the presumption that officers of the law properly performed their duties be overridden. With respect to the alleged Johnson statements,14 we do not see how, if made, they influ- enced the vote or denied a free choice. As shown by the affidavit of Powers, the statements were made to him. Powers was not a voter. He was not even in the employ of the Company at that time, so far as appears. He was stationed at the polls to perform duties as a notary public in connection with notarization of the affidavits of eligibility signed by voters. He does not state in his affidavit that the alleged Johnson statements were made, repeated, or published to persons other than himself, or were originally or otherwise expressed in the presence or within the hearing of others. The Company objects that the ballot used in the election was "indefinite" and "calculated to mislead the voters" because it con- tained no explanation of the meaning of the word "neither" in the caption containing the words "If you desire to be represented by neither mark X in the square below." It is plain from an examination of the ballot that this contention is without merit. The ballot was sub- stantially in the form regularly used by the Board in elections involving two or more competing labor organizations.',' It is the experience of 14 The only showing in support of this allegation is made in the affidavit of Powers , above mentioned. The affidavit sets forth that "John E. Johnson said to this affiant [Powers] when a man whose name affiant does not know entered the voting place 'That man is a G-d d- A F of L . snooper.' That affiant asked said Johnson about the Union at Swift & Company [not a party herein), and said he understood they were getting along well, and Johnson said 'No, that is a company union and we will have to get rid of it. It is company dominated' . . . . That John E. Johnson said to him [Powers] that the A F. of L. did not come to the election because they knew they were licked and didn't want to vote." ii The ballot was as follows OFFICIAL BALLOT To determine the exclusive representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining of certain employees of THE CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY , Kansas City, Kansas, plant. 1. This is a SECRET ballot . Do NOT SIGN your name 2 MARK an "X" in ONE SQUARE ONLY 3 If you spoil your ballot , return it to the Board 's Agent and obtain a new one 4. Fold your ballot to conceal the "X " you have made and deposit it personally in the bal. lot box. THE CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY 759 the Board from the conduct of these elections among workers in various industries throughout the country that the word usage and form of the ballot are understood by the voters.l6 The Company further objects that the ballot was "unfair and ille- gal" because it did not "give the opportunity for the voters to vote for a representative of their choice other than the two named on the ballot." The Company identifies no other representative. If it in- tends to refer to Packing House Workers Union of Kansas City as such "other" representative, its objection raises an issue previously considered and determined in the Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.17 The Company objects that "In the ballots which were returned and counted in favor of C. I. O. [United] were many irregularities." The so-called "irregularities" specified were that "there were many ballots in which the cross mark extended entirely outside the ballot"; and that "in many others there was an additional mark in the space be- sides the cross mark and in some of them there was writing by the side of the cross, evidently made by the voter." As regards this ob- jection the Regional Director stated in his Report that he invited counsel for the Company to appear at the Regional Office and point out the ballots to which the objection was directed, but that counsel for the Company refused and stated that the objection was specific. The Regional Director inspected each and every ballot and found that there were some ballots in which one or more arms of the "X" extended beyond the box provided for the expression of the voter's choice by such mark, but on all of these ballots the point where the arms of the "X" crossed was within the box; that there were two ballots on which appeared some additional writing outside the box in which the voter placed his "X" and that the writing on both appears to be intended for "C. I. 0."; that in a number of instances, If you desire to be represented by C.I 0. United Packing House Workers of America, -Local Union No. 10, of the Packing House Workers Organizing Com- mittee , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations Mark an "x" in the square below If you desire to be represented by NEITHER Mark an "x" in the square below If you desire to be represented by A F. L. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 574, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor Mark an "x" in the square below This Is a Secret Ballot and MUST NOT Be Signed IE See e . g., Matte of Endicott Johnson Corporation and Boot & Shoe Workers Lnion, Local 46, A F. of L., 17 N. L. R B. 1004,20 N. L. R. B 698 17 Matter of The Cudahy Packing Cornpani and Lnited Packing House Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 194, 17 N. L. R. B. 302. 760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD voters used more than two lines in making their "X"; that on one ballot, the voter placed an "X" in the box under the name of the United and drew a line through the box under "Neither" and through the box under the name of the Amalgamated Local; that upon his inspection he is satisfied that the ballots counted for the United truly reflect the desires of voters who cast such ballot; that Board agents, observers for the United, and representatives of the Department of Police who participated in the count were satisfied therewith; and finally, that the exclusion of the ballots could not have affected the results of the election. We are satisfied that the so-called "irregu- larities" in certain ballots in no way detracted from the evident in- tention of the voters casting such ballots or affected the election or results thereof. In its Objections the Company challenges the capability, legal or otherwise, of the notaries public who functioned at the election to notarize the affidavits of eligibility submitted to the Board by the voters. This objection is apparently based upon the statement con- tained in the affidavit of Attorney Powers that he "was not ac- quainted with and did not know more than about a dozen voters." The jurat on the affidavits of eligibility is set forth above.'8 Personal knowledge by the notary public of the identity of the affiant or of facts concerning the affiant was not necessary to the validity of the affidavit under the form used. The affidavits contemplated deposition under oath by the voter of the facts upon which his eligibility to vote depended. There are certain statements in the Powers' affidavit which, if true, are or may be capable of an interpretation casting doubt upon the validity of the election and election results. To dispel such doubt we advert briefly to them. It is stated in Powers' affidavit that approximately 25 per cent of the voters executed the affidavits of eligibility by a cross mark. The Regional Director states in his Report on the Company's Objections that this statement is incorrect, that only 22 of the voters who executed affidavits used a cross mark for their signatures. As above stated, the affidavits were made avail- able to the parties for inspection. Powers further stated in his affidavit that blanks in the form of affidavits of eligibility, which the voters signed, were filled in by Board agents. The Regional Director reported that Board agents did fill in the affidavits, as they properly could, from information given orally to them by each voter. The Powers' affidavit states that Board agents gave "oral instructions to the voters about how to vote as well as to what do with their ballot." This statement is patently ambiguous, and insufficient to ground a challenge of the election or results. The Regional Director reports that the only instructions given to voters were that the ballot was a 18 See footnote 6, supra. THE CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY 761 secret ballot; that voters were not to mark their name or number on the ballot; that voters should refrain from putting any mark on the ballot except "X" in one square only; that there were pencils available in the voting booths; that each voter should take his ballot to the voting booth, mark it and fold it there, and place it in the ballot box as he left the polling place; and that in four or five instances it was necessary for Board agents to explain to voters that if they wished to vote for the Amalgamated Local they should place an "X" in a particular square, that if they desired to vote for the United they should place an "X" in the opposite square, and that if they wished to vote for neither labor organization, they should put an "X" in the square below the word "Neither." In addition, the affidavit of Powers contained general statements that "the Board had a large number of agents present conducting the election"; that "agents of the Board conducting the election appeared to know a very large number of the voters and greeted them, even calling them by their first name," and that "the conduct of the agents of the Board gave this affiant the impression that they were friendly to the C. I. O. [United]." We are of the opinion that these allega- tions are insufficient in law and fact to support the Objections. We observe generally in connection with the Powers' affidavit that on the date of the election he, together with the other notary public, executed a Certificate of Conduct of Election which stated "that we are satisfied that the election in its entirety was conducted in a fair and impartial manner." Powers in his affidavit states that he signed the document at 4.30 P. M., but left the voting place at 6:00 P. M. The Company, in its Objections, states that Powers was "required" to sign this statement. Powers' affidavit merely states that the aforesaid Certifi- cate "was presented to him to sign," and makes no assertion that any compulsion was used. The Regional Director reported that Powers was asked to sign the statement and that he did so without protest. As we have stated above, Powers is an attorney-at-law. We hereby overrule in their entirety the Objections to the conduct of the election and to the Election Report, as amended, filed by the Company and by the Amalgamated Local. The results of the balloting reported by the Regional Director, as modified in accordance with what has been stated above, are as follows: Total ballots cast______________________________________ 881 Total ballots challenged________________________________ 8 Total blank ballots____________________________________ 0 Total void ballots_____________________________________ 15 Total valid votes cast__________________________________ 858 Votes cast FOR United Packing House Workers of America, Local Union No. 10, of the Packing House Workers Or- ganizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of In- dustrial Organizations-------------------------------- 801 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Votes cast FOR Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 574, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor------------------------ Votes cast for NEITHER United Packing House Workers of America, Local Union No. 10, of the Packing House Work- ers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, nor Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 574, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 19 38 The foregoing results show that United Packing House Workers of America, Local Union No. 10, of the Packing House Workers Organiz- ing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, has been designated and selected by a majority of the Company's employees within the appropriate unit as their statutory representa- tive. By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Packing House Workers of America, Local Union No. 10, of the Packing House Workers Organiz- ing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, has been designated and selected by a majority of all production and maintenance employees of The Cudahy Packing Company at its Kansas City, Kansas, plant, excluding foremen, assistant foremen, strawbosses, and foreladies, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, United Packing House Workers of Amer- ica, Local Union No 10, of the Packing House Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.