George K. Garrett Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 484 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cedar Grove, and Kenilworth, New Jersey, including diecutters,
clampers, machine engravers, and their apprentices, but excluding
office clerical employees, truckdrivers, maintenance employees, gra-
vure workers, salesmen, guards, the officers of Unity Engravers, In-
corporated," and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. About a month before the hearing, Unity for economic reasons
laid off six employees. They all received severance pay in accordance
with the contract between Unity and the Intervenor. At the time
of the hearing, five of them were working in the appropriate unit for
other Employers involved herein. As they will therefore be eligible
to vote in the election, if they otherwise satisfy the requirements of
our direction of election, we find it unnecessary to consider further
their voting eligibility. As to the remaining laid-off employee, we
find that he does not have a reasonable expectancy of reemployment
within the appropriate unit in the foreseeable future, and we there-
fore find him ineligible to vote in the election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
11 Except as to these persons, there is no dispute as to the specific categories to be-
included and excluded.
George K. Garrett Company, Inc. and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-3525. April 16,
1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
entered into by the parties on December 6, 1957, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on December 17, 1957, among the employees at
the Employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant, under the direc--
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region.
At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a
tally of ballots which shows that of approximately 500 eligible voters,
485 cast ballots, of which 242 were cast for the Petitioner, and 241
were cast against the Petitioner.'
On December 23, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to the
election, contending that the Board's representative erroneously failed'
to "void and disallow" the ballot of Robert Garrett, and also failed
to count an allegedly valid ballot. Thereafter, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation, and on February 13, 1958, issued and
1 Two ballots are listed in the Regional Director's report and recommendations as
"challenged" ballots. These are the same ballots which were made the subject of the-
Employer's objections , and which are discussed in the text, infra.
120 NLRB No. 65.
GEORGE K. GARRETT COMPANY, INC. 485
served upon the parties his report and recommendations on chal-
lenged ballots and objections in which he recommended that the Em-
ployer's objections be sustained. On March 7, 1958, the Petitioner
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the objections,
the Regional Director's report, and the Petitioner' s exceptions thereto.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings of fact :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's lockwashers and metal stampings manufacturing plant
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, excluding all office clerical employees,
executives, professionals, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
The Objections
5. The Employer contended that a ballot bearing a signature,
purportedly that of Robert Garrett, should not be counted. The
Regional Director, in the course of his investigation, compared the
signature on the ballot with employee Robert Garrett's signature on
a personnel form, and found that the two signatures were identical.
He thereupon recommended that the Employer's objection be sus-
tained, on the ground that the voter was identified by the signature,
thus destroying the secrecy of the ballot. The Petitioner excepted to
this recommendation, contending in essence that there was no substan-
tial proof that the signature across the ballot was in fact that of
Robert Garrett. We find this contention without merit. It has been
the policy of the Board to invalidate a ballot if it contains marks
identifying the voter 2 This rule is applicable to invalidate ballots
which might give "rise to the possibility of revealing the identity of
the voter." 3 This we find to be the case here. Accordingly, we shall
overrule the Petitioner's exception, and we hereby adopt the Regional
z Eagle Iron Works, 117 NLRB 1053; Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 115 NLRB
1790.
1 Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, supra, at page 1792.
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director's recommendation that Garrett's ballot be found invalid and
not be counted.4
The Employer also objected to the Board agent's failure to count a
ballot which had a four-letter expletive written in the lower right-
hand section of the ballot which contained space for a "NO" vote.
The expletive was clearly written adjacent to the voter's mark in the
"NO" box, and in no way touched that section of the ballot containing
a "YES" box. The Regional Director recommended that the ballot
be counted because the marking on the ballot served only to indicate
the voter's intent. The Petitioner excepted to his recommendation on
the grounds that the vulgarity and obscenity of the word constituted
an abuse of the Board's processes. Because the word written close to
a mark in the "NO" box only emphasized the voter's intent to cast a
"NO" ballot, we find, under all the circumstances, that the ballot is
valid. Accordingly, we direct that it be counted as a vote against
the Petitioner and be included in the official tally.'
We accordingly adopt the Regional Director's recommendations and
sustain the Employer's objections. As it now appears that the Peti-
tioner did not receive a majority of the votes cast, we shall certify the
results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast
for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said labor
organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in
the unit found appropriate.]
4 The Petitioner also contends that the Employer's objection to the "Garrett" ballot
constitutes a postelection challenge and is thus invalid See Flight Enterprises, Inc., 119
NLRB 1442. In this connection, the Petitioner, though noting that the Employer
objected to the counting of the ballot before the official tally of ballots was signed, asserts
that the Employer's observer failed to object to the counting of the ballot until it was
apparent that the ballot could affect the outcome of the election. We find no merit in the
Petitioner's contention We are here passing on the validity of a ballot and not on a
challenge to the eligibility of the person casting the ballot ; the question of the validity
of a ballot may properly be raised by a timely objection after the count and is not con-
sidered a postelection challenge. F. J. Stokes Corporation, 117 NLRB 951, 954.
5 F. J. Stokes Corporation, supra, at 954
Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local No . 639, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America and Dixie Janitor Supply Co ., Inc. Case No. 5-CC-87.
April 17',1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 11, 1957, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
120 NLRB No. 54.