Luntz Iron & Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 72 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posed expansion is speculative. In these circumstances and because
the record discloses that the present complement is a substantial and
representative segment of the working force which will eventually be
employed, we shall direct an immediate election?
The Petitioner requests that eligibility to vote in the election di-
rected herein be determined by the payroll period next preceding
August 6, 1951, the date of filing the petition herein. We see no
compelling reason to depart in this case from our usual procedure of
utilizing the payroll period immediately preceding the direction of
election and the Petitioner's request is hereby denied 2
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
i Electrical Reactance Corporation, 92 NLRB 1256.
x Greater Erie Broadeastang Company ( Radio Station WWOL), 92 NLRB 270.
LUNTZ IRON & STEEL COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 8-RC-1308. November 20, 1951
Decision and Certification of Representatives
On July 24, 1951, pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election," an election by secret ballot was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon the com-
pletion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties.
The tally reveals that of approximately 66 eligible voters, 56 cast valid
ballots, of which 28 were for, and 28 were against, the Petitioner.
Two void ballots were cast and there were no challenged ballots.
On July 27,1951, and July 30,1951, the Petitioner and the Employer,
respectively, filed objections to the election. The Petitioner alleged
that (1) certain activities of the Employer and its agents interfered
with the employees' free choice of a bargaining representative; (2)
the Board agent conducting the election erred in ruling void a ballot
marked in a manner resembling a "no" under the "Yes" box, asserting
that this ballot should have been counted for the Petitioner; and (3)
the agent also erred in ruling valid a ballot marked with a red pen-
ciled "X" in the "No" box, which was identified by the Employer's
observer as having been cast by him. The Petitioner requested that
the Board agent's determination concerning these two ballots be over-
ruled and that it be certified or, in the alternative, that the election be
set aside on the basis of its first objection. The Employer alleged in
its first and second objections that the Petitioner and its agents en-
97 NLRB No.11.
LUNTZ IRON & STEEL COMPANY 73
gaged in certain activity before and after the election that interfered
with its employees' freedom of choice and, as its third objection, that
the Board agent erred in ruling void the ballot with the mark re-
sembling "no" under the "Yes" box, contending that this ballot should
have been counted against the Petitioner. The Employer requested
that the Petitioner's objections be overruled and the petition be
dismissed.
After an investigation, the Regional Director, on September 21,
1951, issued his report on objections. In his report, he stated that the
Petitioner's objection No. 1 raised material and substantial issues
which could be resolved only by a hearing. He found no merit in the
Petitioner's objection No. 2 and the Employer's objection No. 3, and
recommended that both should be overruled. He found merit in Peti-
tioner's objection No. 3, and recommended that it be sustained. As to
the Employer's objections Nos. 1 and 2, the Regional Director recom-
mended that they be overruled because no evidence substantiating the
allegations therein was submitted. He further recommended that, in
the event the Board should not follow his recommendation and sustain
the Petitioner's objection No. 3, a hearing should be held with respect
to the Petitioner's objection No. 1 to resolve issues of credibility re-
vealed during the investigation. Thereafter, the Employer filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's findings and recommendations,
more fully described below.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved herein claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. All production and 9Xintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Warren and Hubbard, Ohio, plants, excluding clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
5. The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's recommenda-
tion that its objections Nos. 1 and 2 be overruled because the Employer
1 The unit is essentially the same as that described in the "Stipulation for Certification
upon Consent Election"
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had furnished no evidence substantiating its allegations. The En7-
ployer asserts that it submitted "some evidence" to the Regional Di-
rector. We find no merit in this exception. It is not sufficient for
an objecting party merely to allege in its exceptions that it proffered
some evidence which the Regional Director either did not consider or
properly evaluate, without substantiating its objection by the proffer
of evidence to the Board, or citing specific evidence which the Regional
Director failed to consider or investigate. In these circumstances, we
see no reason not to rely upon the Regional Director's findings, as no
substantial issues of credibility are involved.2 We therefore overrule
this exception and adopt the Regional Director's recommendation con-
cerning the Employer's first and second objections.
The Employer also excepts to the Regional Director's recommenda-
tion that the Board agent's action in declaring void the ballot with a
marking resembling "no" under the "Yes" block, be sustained. The
Employer contends that this ballot should be declared valid and
counted against the Petitioner. We believe that this exception is also
lacking in merit. The ballot in question is the customary type used
in Board elections involving only one labor organization and provides
for a choice between "Yes" and "No," and contains instructions to the
voter to mark an "X" in the square of his choice. Here, the voter,
instead, placed below the "Yes" box a mark resembling the word
"no," or possibly the letters "uo." We find that this ballot does not
clearly reflect the intention of the voter.' Accordingly, we adopt the
Regional Director's recommendation and sustain the action of the
Board agent in ruling the ballot void.
The Employer likewise excepts to the Regional Director's recom-
mendation that the ballot marked with a red pencil be ruled void.
This ballot was marked with a red-pencilled "X" in the "No" box,
the only one out of 58 ballots that were cast in the election thus
marked.4 Upon the conclusion, of the election the Petitioner objected
to the Board agent's ruling that the ballot was valid. Thereafter,
in the course of a discussion concerning this ballot, the Employer's
observer voluntarily identified himself as the voter who had cast the
ballot; he said that he had marked the ballot with a red pencil used
by him for the purpose of checking the voters during the election.
In the recent Laconia case 5 the Board said :
... our concern for preserving the secrecy of the ballot in elec-
tions conducted by'this Board requires that we permit no oppor-
tunities for identification of a voter.
2Radio Corporation of America ( Victor Division ), 90 NLRB 2017 ; Southern Wood
Preserving Company, 89 NLRB 1243 ; Stonewall Cotton Mills , 78 NLRB 28.
8 john F Jelke Company, 83 NLRB 442 , and cases cited therein.
4 A black pencil had been placed in the voting booth for the use of the voters.
Laconia Malleable Iron Company, Inc, 95 NLRB 161.
THE LACLEDE . GAS LIGHT COMPANY 75
Because the markings may have been deliberately made, and
may have served to reveal the identity of the voter, we find that
the ballot is void.
We believe that the principle set forth in that case is applicable to
this situation. Here the red "X" marking may, or may not, have
been deliberately made. Certainly it could have served to identify the
voter as, in fact, it did. Therefore, for the reasons stated in that
case, we overrule this exception -and adopt the Regional Director's
recommendation. Accordingly, we find that this ballot is void.'
We find that the Employer's objections and exceptions' and the
Petitioner's second objection do not raise material or substantial issues
with respect to the election. As the Petitioner has secured a majority
of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify it as the bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees
of Luntz Iron & Steel Company in the unit hereinabove found appro-
priate as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization
is the exclusive bargaining agent of all such employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
6 Cf Ebco Manufacturing Company, 88 NLRB 983.
7 We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the Employer 's exception to the Regional Director's
recommendation that a hearing be directed as to the Petitioner 's first objection , in view of
Petitioner 's desire to withdraw that objection
THE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMI-
CAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., LOCAL No. 6 and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F. L., LOCAL No. 148
THE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMI-
CAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O., LOCAL No. 6, PETITIONER. Ca8e8
Nos. 14-RE-18 and 14-UA-2892. November 21, 1951
Order Denying Motion
Following an election conducted pursuant to a Supplemental Deci-
sion, Order Setting Aside Direction of Election, and Second Direction
of Election," Local No. 6, United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of
1 77 NLRB 354.
97 NLRB No, 15.