Halliburton Portland Cement Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1552 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of HALLIBURTON PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, EM-
PLOYER and UNITED CEMENT, LIME AND GYPS,IIM' WORKERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 39-RC--190
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
January,04, 1951
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections, dated October
6, 1950,1 elections by secret ballot were held on October 25, 1950, in
the instant case, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, among the employees of the Em-
ployer in the prescribed voting groups. At the close of the elections
the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that (1)
in voting group (a) 2 95 valid ballots were cast, of which 50 were
against, and 45 for, the Petitioner, and (2) in voting group .(b) 3 21
ballots were cast, of which 10 were for no union, 7 for the Petitioner,
2 for the Intervenor,4 and 2 were challenged.
The Petitioner and the Intervenor filed objections to the foregoing
elections, alleging that approximately 40 employees who were eligible
to vote were not allowed to vote. The Regional Director investigated
these objections and on November 13, 1950, issued and duly served
upon the parties a Report on Objections and Recommendations.
The Regional Director found that the Petitioner and Employer
had stipulated at the original hearing in this case to exclude temporary
construction workers from the proposed unit; that at the preelection
conference on October 24, 1950, the Employer submitted eligibility
lists, from which were omitted the names of 74 employees classified
by the Employer as temporary construction workers; that the Peti-
tioner and Intervenor, after investigating the nature of the work done
by these 74 employees, abandoned their contention that these em-
' 91 NLRB 717.
2 This voting group comprised all production , maintenance , and warehouse employees
at the Employer ' s Corpus Christi , Texas , plant , including physical testers and sample
boys in the laboratory , subject to certain specified exclusions.
3 This group was composed of employees in the maintenance department excluding
supervisors.
District Lodge 166 , International Association of Machinists.
92 NLRB No. 237.
1552
HALLIBURTON PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY 1553
ployees should be deemed eligible to vote; that the Board agent then
told the union representatives that if any of these employees appeared
at the polls they would be notified that they were ineligible and that
if they insisted on voting they would be challenged by the Board
agent; that some 8 or 10 of these 74 employees appeared at the polls
but left without voting when informed that the parties had agreed
that they were ineligible to vote; and that the official observers for
the Petitioner and the Intervenor certified that all eligible voters
were given an opportunity to vote. In view of all these circumstances,
the Regional Director recommended in effect that the Board overrule
the objections to the elections.
The Petitioner alone filed exceptions to the report on objections,
contending that, while it agreed at the original hearing in this case
to exclude temporary.construction workers from the proposed unit,
some of the employees, so classified by the Employer and omitted by
it from the eligibility lists were in fact regular production or mainte-
nance employees, who were entitled to vote .5 The Petitioner alleges
further that, while it did finally agree to accept the Employer's
eligibility list, it expressly reserved the right to file objections to the
elections on the ground that the Employer's list of temporary con-
struction workers contained production and maintenance employees 6
The Petitioner, accordingly, requests that the elections held herein be
set aside and new elections directed.
The Employer, in opposition to these exceptions, submitted a num-
ber of affidavits by person attending the preelection conference, deny-
ing that the Petitioner had at such conference reserved the right to
object to the elections on the grounds indicated above. We deem it
unnecessary to resolve the conflict on this point.
The Petitioner now seeks, in effect, to have the question of the eligi-
bility of certain employees resolved upon objections to the elections.
The Board's procedures permit questions as.to the eligibility of voters
to be raised by challenges to their ballots made at the time they are
cast. The Board has, however, consistently declined to permit such
questions to be raised through post-election challenges, as any other
rule would "destroy the finality of the election result.' 1 7 The same
considerations require that the Board refuse to entertain objections
to an election which, as in this case, relate primarily to the eligibility
of certain employees, where the employees have failed to exercise
6In support of this contention the Petitioner submitted affidavits of eight employees
classified by the Employer as temporary construction workers, most of whom stated that
they had been led by the Employer to believe that they were permanent employees, and
that they were engaged in regular plant maintenance rather than new construction.
s This allegation was supported by affidavits of union representatives who attended the
preelection conference.
T N. L. R: B. v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U. S. 324, 331.
1554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOA2:D
their right to vote subject to challenges Such objections arc: in the
nature of post-election challenges, and, if generally permitted, would
destroy the finality of elections.
Under these circumstances, we 9 find no merit in the Petitioner's
exceptions, and they are hereby overruled.
We shall order that the petition be dismissed with respect to voting
group (a). As. the two challenged ballots in voting group (b) may
affect the result of the election among the employees in that group, we
shall remand the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of con-
ducting an investigation of such challenges and preparing a supple-
mental report thereon.'°
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this case be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it pertains to the employees in voting group
( a).11
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and it hereby is,
remanded to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region for the
purpose of conducting an investigation of the two challenged ballots
in voting group (b), and preparing and serving a report of such
investigation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 102.61 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, as amended.
8 There is no contention in this case that the Petitioner was not aware that the
employees classified by the Employer as temporary construction workers were entitled to
vote subject to challenge or that such of them as sought to vote were not advised of their
right to vote subject to challenge.
e Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case toa three-member panel [Members Houston , Reynolds,
and Styles].
10 The Petitioner 's request for oral argument is denied , as the record in our opinion
adequately sets forth the positions of the parties.
11 For a description of this voting group, see footnote 2, above.