TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
70 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Labor</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> <strong>Board</strong><br />
made to coincide with the time when a representative number of the<br />
contemplated enlaiged work force is employed 67<br />
The Boaid declined to dismiss a petition which sought a unit of<br />
employees at a construction company's fabrication yard although<br />
no substantial and iepresentative employee complement was presently<br />
employed at the yard because of the completion of contracts aftei<br />
the filing of the petition 68 However, in view of the expected increase<br />
in yard peisonnel as new contemplated contracts are obtained, the<br />
<strong>Board</strong> tieated the yard operations here as analogous to seasonal operations<br />
and dilectecl the regional directoi to conduct an election "in<br />
the foreseeable future when, in the opinion of the regional director, a<br />
substantial and representative complement is employed" at the employer's<br />
yard<br />
c Standards of Election Conduct<br />
<strong>Board</strong> elections are conducted m accordance with strict standards<br />
designed to assure that the participating employees have an oppoitunity<br />
to register a free and untrammeled choice in selecting a bargaining<br />
representative Any party to an election who believes that<br />
the standards were not met may, within 5 days, file objections to the<br />
election with the regional director under whose supervision it was<br />
held The regional &lector then may either make a report on the<br />
objections, or may issue a decision disposing of the issues raised by<br />
the objections which is subject to a limited review by the <strong>Board</strong> 7"<br />
Tn the GI ea the iegional director issues a report, any party may file<br />
exceptions to this iepoit with the <strong>Board</strong> The issues reused by the<br />
objections, and exceptions if any, are then finally determined by the<br />
<strong>Board</strong><br />
(1) Mechanics of Election<br />
Election details, such as the time, place, and notice of an election,<br />
are left largely to the regional director 72 The <strong>Board</strong> does not inter-<br />
J R Simplot Co, 130 NLRB 272 See also <strong>National</strong> Gypsum Co, 128 NLRB 315.<br />
Boum Chemical Co 129 NLRB 929, and Ifolker Chemical Corp, 130 NLRB 1'394, n here<br />
unit expansion was held not to justify post ponement because it vris shown thlt a substantial<br />
and representative segment of the employee complement would be employed at Um<br />
normal election date<br />
W Horace Williams Co, 130 NLRB 223<br />
so See also Ernest Renda Contracting Co, 130 NLRB 1515, where the <strong>Board</strong> postponed<br />
the election because construction work on a sanitary sewer project may be intermittent on<br />
gccount of adverse climatic conditions.<br />
70 This procedure applies only to directed elections, not consent or stipulated elections<br />
For the latter procedures, see <strong>Board</strong>'s Rules and Regulations. Series 8, secs 102 62 and<br />
102 69(c)<br />
71 The procedures for filing objections and exceptions and for their disposition are set<br />
out in sec 102 69 of the <strong>Board</strong>'s Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, effective<br />
with respect to any petition filed under sec 9 (c) or (e) of the act on or after May 15, 1961<br />
Under the old bec 102 09, in force during the greater part of fiscal 1961, the procedures<br />
provided that If any party to an election should timely file objections, the regional director<br />
could then only make a report on the objections<br />
*2 See, e g, Jat Transportation Corp, 131 NLRB No 39, Member Fanning dissenting in<br />
other respects, where the <strong>Board</strong> rejected the contention that the free choice of the em-