Seattle Bakers' Bureau, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 270 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SEATTLE BAKERS' BUREAU, INC. and CONGRESS OF IN-
DUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Petitioner . Case No. 19-RC-
1186 . April 21, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICA-
TION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,t an
election by secret ballot was conducted during the period be-
tween January 21 and January 30, 1953, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in
the above-mentioned decision. Thereafter, a tally of ballots
was furnished the parties, showing that 251 voted for the
Petitioner, 224 voted for the Intervenor, 2 5 voted against
the participating labor organizations, and there were 18
challenged ballots. On February 5, 1953, the Intervenor filed
objections to the conduct of the election and conduct affecting
the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation of the Intervenor's
objections and, on February 27, 1953, issued and duly served
upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found
that the objections raised no substantial and material issues
with respect to the conduct of the election and conduct affecting
the results of the election and recommended that the objections
be overruled and dismissed: Inasmuch as the challenged
ballots were of themselves insufficient to affect the results
of the election, he made recommendations with respect to the
disposition of the challenged ballots conditioned upon the
Board's arriving at a result in its disposition of the objections
which would make the challenged ballots material. Thereafter,
the Intervenor and the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
report on objections and, in addition, each petitioned the Board
to reconsider its Decision and Direction of Election herein
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 Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
Petitions for Reconsideration
The petitions for reconsideration filed by the Intervenor and
Employer raise no issues which warrant modification of the
Board' s Decision herein. Accordingly, the petitions are denied.
Objections and Exceptions
In its objections the Intervenor contends, in effect, that the
Regional Director's failure to conduct the election at the plants
1101 NLRB No. 196, as amended by order of January 8,1953 (not published in printed
volumes of Board decisions).
= Bakers Union Local No. 9, AFL.
104 NLRB No. 32.
SEATTLE BAKERS ' BUREAU, INC. 271
of the employer-members of the Seattle Bakers' Bureau, Inc.,
the Employer in this case, and his adoption, instead, of a voting
procedure which gave the employees the option of voting by
mail or voting manually at the Regional Office of the Board had
the toylowing prejudicial consequences:
(1)Fifteen mail ballots were not counted by the Regional
Director because they, arrived after the deadline for receipt
of mail ballots, although within the time allowed for manual
voting.
(2) Many other ballots mailed by the Regional Director to
employees were not delivered because incorrectly addressed.
With respect to these objections, the Regional Director's
report discloses the following: , 8
On January 19, 1953, notices of election were mailed to all
46 member-employers of Seattle Bakers' Bureau, Inc., stating
that ballots would be mailed to each employee whose name
was supplied by the Bureau, that the ballots would have to be
received at the Regional Office not later than 2 p.m. on
January 28, 1953, and that any eligible voter not voting by mail
could vote by appearing in person at the Regional Office on
January 29 and 30, 1953. On January 21 ballots were mailed
to employees of members of the Bureau whose bakeries were
located outside of Seattle, and on January 22 ballots were
mailed to all other employees on the eligibility list submitted
by the Bureau to addresses supplied by the Bureau. With the
ballots, instructions were mailed containing the same in-
formation as the notices of election sent to each member of the
Employer concerning the alternative methods of voting. Four-
teen ballots were returned to the Regional Office by the post-
master because of improper addresses. Better addresseswere
obtained for 8 of these, and they were remailed. Of the 14
pers'dtis whose ballots were originally wrongly addressed, 9
voted" in the election either by mail or manually. At 2 p.m. on
January 28, 419 mail ballots, including challenged ballots,
had been received at the Regional Office from eligible voters.
Fifteen additional ballots were received after the established
deadline for receipt of mail ballots. Seven of the fifteen persons
from whom these ballots were received voted manually on
January 29 or 30. As the parties could not reach agreement
on a proposal by the Board agent that the ballots of the remain-
ing eight persons should be opened, these ballots were not
opened and counted.
Of the 539 employees to whom ballots were mailed, 497, 2
or 92 percent, actually voted either manually or by mail.
Deducting from both these figures the 12 voters receiving mail
ballots who were determined by the Regional Director in his
rulings on challenges to be ineligible,4 the ratio is 482 out of
539 or 91 percent.
a Four additional votes were cast by persons to whom no ballots were mailed because they
were not on the eligibility list supplied by the Bureau.
4The Regional Director 's rulings on challenges are hereby adopted, in the absence of ex-
ceptions by the parties . In addition to the 12 challenged voters who received ballots, the
Regional Director found that 4 who received no mail ballots were also ineligible . Challenges
to 2 other ballots were overruled.
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
From these facts the Regional Director concluded, in effect,
that there was no adequate reason shown for setting the election
aside, and he recommended that all objections be overruled.
The Intervenor contends in its exceptions that the use of the
mail ballot was not justified, that eligible voters were prevented
from voting because of confusion generated by the method of
voting, that the 41 eligible voters who did not vote in the election
might have voted had the election been held manually, and that
their votes might have changed the results of the election. The
Employer did not file separate exceptions , but adopted those of
the Intervenor.
The Board has often held that the Regional Director has
broad discretion in determining the method by which elections
shall be conducted, and may in the exercise of his discretion
conduct an election by mail ballot, even where not specifically
authorized to do so.5 In the instant case, as admitted by the
Intervenor in its exceptions, there were involved in the election
46 different plants within a radius of 20 miles.
As stated above, 91 percent of the voters determined by the
Regional Director to be eligible actually voted. This ratio
compares favorably with that applicable to Board elections
generally. The mere speculative possibility that the remaining
9 percent might have voted if the election had been held at the
plants does not warrant a finding that the voting procedure in
the instant case was improper.6 Moreover, the total number of
persons who were found not to have received any snail ballots,
or whose ballots were not counted because received too late
by the Regional Office, could not in any event exceed 13. Even
if we assume that all 13 persons voted, or would have voted,
for the Intervenor, the election result would not be affected.,
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, we find
no abuse of discretion in the Regional Director's adoption of
the voting procedure employed in the instant case, and we will
therefore overrule the exceptions to the Regional Director's
report on objections. As the Petitioner received a majority of
the ballots, we will certify it as the representative of the
employees.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions for reconsider-
ation herein be, and they hereby, are denied.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Congress of Industrial
Organizations has been designated and selected by a majority
of the employees of the member bakeries of Seattle Bakers'
$Southwestern Michigan Broadcasting Company, 94 NLRB 30.
6Red Wing Potteries, Inc., 88 NLRB 1234.
?Nor would the result be affected by counting the 2 ballots as to which challenges were
overruled by the Regional Director. Accordingly , we shall not direct that these 2 ballots be
opened and counted.
DERENSON'S 273
Bureau, Inc., employed as foreman, dough mixers , oven men,
moulder men, machine men, benchhands, control room men,
jobbers, bakers, helpers, excluding guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, machinists,
engineers , clericals, office employees, driver salesmen,
special delivery drivers, over-the-road transport drivers,
delivery men, semitruck and trailer drivers, loaders, checkers,
wrappers, delivery men for retail bakeries, stockmen and flour
blenders, assistant stockmen and flour blenders, men in charge
of miscellaneous help, miscellaneous help, floorladies, assist-
ant floorladies, machine operators, experienced girls, be-
ginners, and all other employees, as their representative for
purposes of collective bargaining , and that pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive
representative of 'all the employees included in the foregoing
unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
DERENSON'S and LOCAL 576, FURNITURE WORKERS, UP-
HOLSTERERS AND WOOD WORKERS UNION, INDEPEND-
ENT. Cases Nos. 21-CA-1353 and 21-CA-1408. April 22, 1953.
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 30, 1952, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceed-
ings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with these cases to a three-member panel [ Mem-
bers Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed., The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the cases, and hereby adopts the
t The Respondent filed a motion with the Board alleging that the Union is not in compliance
with Section 9 (h) of the Act by virtue of the fact that Gus Brown has not filed an affidavit
as an officer of the labor organization and requesting an investigation of Brown 's status
as business representative . An administrative investigation of this matter , however , has not
disclosed information showing that Brown is an officer of the Union, and we are adminis-
tratively satisfied that the Union is, and has been, in compliance at all times material. In its
brief the Respondent renewed several motions for dismissal made at the hearing which were
denied by the Trial Examiner. TheTrial Examiner 's rulings are affirmed , and the motions are
hereby denied.
104 NLRB No. 38.