NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 149
In Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation, 23 the objections to the election
referred to the unseemly conduct of an attorney for one of the
rival unions, who repeatedly entered the neutral area which was restricted
to eligible voters and election officials and whose demeanor
on several occasions during the course of the election was objectionable.
However, since there was no evidence that he engaged in any
electioneering, the Board held :
We have not found conduct of this sort by an agent for a labor organization
occurring in other cases, and we believe the situation here to be unique. It is
our opinion that such conduct will not occur again, and we do not feel that the
election results should be upset.
5. CERTIFICATION FOLLOWING AN ELECTION
In cases decided under section 9 (c) where certification has been
made on the basis of proof introduced at the hearing and no election
has been held, the Board has ruled, as it has in cases arising under
section 8 (5), that a majority of those in the appropriate unit must
designate the organization to be certified. In cases where an election
has been held, the Board has certified an organization as exclusive
representative if it has received a majority of the votes cast by eligible
employees voting in the election." The basis for the Board's practice
in this regard was discussed in detail in Matter of R. C. A. Manufacturing
Company, Inc. 31 It was there pointed out that properly interpreted
the words "by a majority of the employees" used in section 9
(a) of the act refer to a majority of the eligible employees voting in
the election.
The Board has held that blank, spoiled, or void ballots should not
be counted as cast. Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation 32 and
Matter of Calumet Steel Division of Borg-Warner Corporation.33
Where none of the preferences obtain a majority of the votes cast
in an election involving two or more rival organizations, the Board
has, upon request from the organization receiving the greater number
of votes, directed a run-off election allowing the employees the
opportunity to vote for or against such organization. 34 In the event
elections requires that protests be made promptly at the time irregularities are disclosed."
Another type of objection with respect to an election was raised In Matter of Fedders
Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel d Tin Workers
of N. A., Lodge 1753, 7 N. L. R. B. 817, and was answered by the Board as follows : "We do
not consider that the choice of a place to hold the election, which was 1 mile distant from
the plant, was in any way an arbitrary or an unreasonable choice, as the respondent claims.
We believe that no right of the respondent was in any way affected thereby."
w Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and
Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1657, 6 N. L. R. B. 780.
30 See, for example, Matter of Cudalvg Packing Company and Packing House Workers
Union, Local No. 5, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America.
4 N. L. R. B. 39' Matter of Schwartz-Bernard Cigar Company and United Cigar Workers of
America, Local No. 1. 7 N. L. R. B. 503; Matter of New York Handkerchief Company and
International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local No. '16, 7 N. L. R. B. 624.
31 Matter of R. C. A. Manufacturing Company, Inc., and United Electrical d Radio Workers
of America, 2 N. L. R. B. 159. See also Second Annual Report, pp. 114-117.
32 Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and
Tin Workers of North America, Local No. 1657, 4 N. L. R. B. 55.
la Matter of Calumet Steel Division of Borg-Warner Corporation and Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, 7 N. L. R. B. 340.
In Matter of Fedders Manufacturing Company. Inc. and Amalgamated Association of
Iron, Steel ct Tin Workers of N. A. Lodge 1753, 7 N. L. R. B. 817, the Board rejected
the contention of the employer that because it had received no notice of the request for
a run-off election and because there was no bearing prior to the run-off election, the Board
had no authority to direct such an election, and stated :
The run-off election was as much the result of the hearing as was the original election.
All the issues had been formulated and decided ; no new issues had to be determined. The
respondent, therefore, having participated in the hearing, has no basis for complaint In the
fact that no new hearing was held or in the fact that it did not receive notice of the
request by the Amalgamated for a run-off election. The Board had indicated that it would
not continue its investigation without a request for a run-off election by the labor organize-