Bridgeton Transit

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 1047 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

BRIDGETON TRANSIT 1047
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent Company, described in section I, above,
constitute and affect trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
foreign countries , within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondents have not individually or jointly engaged in any of the unfair
labor practices alleged to have been committed by them in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Bridgeton Transit and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, AFL-
CIO, Lodge #1007, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-3804. Septem-
ber 24, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued May 18,
1959,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 17, 1959,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region, among the employees in the appropriate unit. Fol-
lowing the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that, of approximately 13 eligible voters, 7 cast valid ballots
for, and 6 against, the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Employer filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The
Regional Director investigated the objections and, on July 8, 1959,
issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in
which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that the
Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.
The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report.
The Board 2 has considered the objections, the Regional Director's
report, and the exceptions thereto, and agrees with the findings and
recommendations of the Regional Director.
The Employer objected to the counting of two marked ballots. One
had a check mark instead of an "X" in the "YES" square. On the
other, the "YES" square was blocked in with pen lines. The Regional
Director concluded that these markings indicated clearly the voters'
choice and could not reasonably be construed as means to identify the
voters.
1 123 NLRB 1196.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Bean].
124 NLIIB No. 143.
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer contends that the fact that these two voters were the
only ones who marked their ballots contrary to the instructions specifi-
cally indicated thereon provided a means for their identification and
thereby violated the secrecy of the ballot. In support thereof, the
Employer submits an affidavit that it has information that the voter
who blocked in the voting square with pen lines has identified himself
and stated that he deliberately marked his ballot in such manner to
establish to others that he voted for the Petitioner. We reject this
contention.' The Employer misconceives the test which the Board
applies in determining the validity of a ballot marked otherwise than
with an "X" in an appropriate square. Under our precedents, a ballot
will not be invalidated by reason of its marking if the marking clearly
indicates the voter's choice in the election and does not inherently
identify the voter, or is not such a departure from the usual ways in
which people mark ballots to warrant the conclusion that it is an iden-
tifying mark,4 unless it can be shown that the marking was used for
identification purposes at the suggestion or urging of the participating
Union or the Employer.'
In the instant case, the markings in question indicated clearly the
intent of the voters and, in our opinion, were not inherently a means
of identification. Also, we agree with the Regional Director that they
were not such departures from the usual ways in which ballots are
marked that one could conclude they were used to identify the voters.
The fact, offered to be shown by the Employer, that at least one of the
voters himself may have intended the marking used by him as a means
of later identifying his ballot is not of material significances Finally,
there is no showing that either of the disputed markings was used for
identification purposes at the suggestion or urging of the Petitioner.
The objections are therefore overruled, and we find that both ballots
are valid votes in favor of the Petitioner.
As we have overruled the objections and the Petitioner has received
a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify it
as the representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, AFL-
CIO, Lodge #1007, as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in unit heretofore found appropriate.]
3 The Employer's further contention that the Regional Director was obligated to investi-
gate the above allegations is clearly without merit. See Wood & Smith Shoe Co., 117
NLRB 1760, 1761. Moreover, in view of our disposition of the objection, the Employer's
request for a hearing with respect to its allegations is hereby denied.
4 See, e.g. , General Steel Tank Company, Inc., 111 NLRB 222, 225 ; Pioneer Electronics
Corporation, 112 NLRB 1010, 1011 ; F. J. Stokes Corporation, 117 NLRB 951, 955.
George K. Garrett Co., Inc., 120 NLRB 484, 486; Re-Rich Manufacturing Corporation,
120 NLRB 1444, 1445, footnote 2; E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 121 NLRB 1175.
s Cf. Elm City Broadcasting Corporation, 116 NLRB 1670, 1672. See also , Crucible
Steel Company of America, 117 NLRB 1616, 1618.
6 Luntz Iron & Steel Company, 97 NLRB 909, 910.