Eagle Iron Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

EAGLE IRON WORKS 1053
its present operations with a substantial and representative comple-
ment of employees for a period of approximately 6 months, with the
possibility that the Atomic Energy Commission 's order may be re-
voked before final shutdown , we find that the Act will best be effec-
tuated by the direction of an immediate election.ii
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
11 General Electric Company, 101 NLRB 1341, 1344; The Girdler Corporation (Dana
Project), 96 NLRB 894, 897.
After the close of the supplemental hearing, the Employer submitted a series of affidavits
signed by R. Page Kelly, plant manager of the Dana plant. These affidavits set forth
certain information showing the personnel and production changes which have occurred
since the Employer's representatives last testified at the final hearing. Because such
affidavits were received after the close of the hearing, they cannot be accepted as evidence
of the matters therein contained. We shall regard them, however, as an offer of proof,
and thus considered, we find, nevertheless, no basis for reaching a contrary result. In
such circumstances, we deny the Petitioner's motion of March 26, 1957, in which it asks
the Board to reject all consideration of the affidavits in question.
Eagle Iron Works and International Molders & Foundry Work-
ers Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
18-RC-3035. April 10, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
On January 10, 1957, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued on December 13, 1956,1 the Regional Director for the
Eighteenth Region conducted an election by secret ballot in the-above-
entitled proceeding. The results of the election, set forth in the tally
of ballots issued and served on the parties at the close of the election,
show that 21 valid ballots were cast for, and 21 against, the Petitioner,
1 ballot was challenged, and 1 ballot was declared void.
Thereafter the Petitioner and the Employer each filed objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election.
On January 21, 1957, after an investigation, the Regional Director
issued and served on the parties his consolidated report and recom-
mendation on challenged ballot and objections to election. In the
report he found, inter alia, that the so-called void ballot, a photostatic
copy of which he attached to his report as Exhibit No. 3, was not im-
properly marked and should be counted as a valid vote against the
Petitioner. If this finding were not sustained, however, he further
found that the challenged ballot, which was cast by Roy Anderson, was
then determinative of the results of the election; and that, because
Anderson was an employee properly within the appropriate unit, the
ballot should be opened and counted.
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
117 NLRB No. 150.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report, contending only
that it was erroneous for the Regional Director to find that the so-
called void ballot was valid. No other exceptions were filed.
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].
The ballots used by the Board in the election were in the customary
form. Prominently printed in capital letters at the top was the state-
ment "OFFICIAL SECRET BALLOT," and at the bottom "DO
NOT SIGN THIS BALLOT." The ballots also instructed the voter
to return a spoiled ballot to the Board agent for a new one. Disre-
garding these safeguards of secrecy, the voter who cast the questioned
ballot, in addition to properly marking his choice in the appropriate
square, also made a mark which is not readily recognizable, but which
appears might be his initial or other identifying mark. This irregular
mark, which upon inspecting the ballot we find was deliberately made,
cannot reasonably be viewed as showing or even as tending to show
the intent of the voter. It is thus entirely distinguishable from the
markings on the two allegedly void ballots in the Stokes case, 117
NLRB 951. Having no legitimate purpose, the mark can serve
only to identify the voter, and inherently destroys the secrecy of the
ballot which the Act directs us to preserve. We therefore find that
the questioned ballot is void.2 We further find that the cases relied
on by the Regional Director are distinguishable, on the ground that
the irregular markings there involved were reasonably intended to
express the choice of the respective voters.
The tally of the ballots, revised in accordance with our decision
herein, shows 21 votes for, and 21 against, the Petitioner, with the
challenged ballot of Roy Anderson determinative of the election. Be-
cause the challenge is without merit, we shall direct the Regional
Director to open and count the ballot, and to take such further proceed-
ings as may be appropriate.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Eighteenth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballot of Roy Anderson, and serve upon the parties
a revised tally of ballots and issue certification.]
2 See Standard - Coosa -Thatcher Company, 115 NLRB 1790, where, in addition to an "x"
in the square of the voter's choice, a ballot also bore an identifying number written in
by the voter. See also National Truck Rental Company, Inc., 110 NLRB 838; 114 NLRB
106, enforced 229 F. 2d 422 (C. A., D. C ), 38 LRRM 2781.
Member Rodgers would find the questioned ballot valid because , in his opinion, the
intent of the voter is clearly revealed and the marking on the ballot is not inherently
such as to disclose the identity of the voter. See F. J. Stokes Corp., 117 NLRB 951,
where the Board recently found two ballots to be valid although the voters, in addition
to properly marking them , as here, in the appropriate square , had printed the word "Hell"
on one ballot and the words "Hell No" on the other. Since the intent of the voter in this
case is clear and since the illegible marking can no more identify the voter than the
legible markings in the Stokes case, Member Rodgers would count the ballot.