NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

150 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARL
the organization obtains a majority of the votes cast by eligible employees
in such run-off election, it is certified as exclusive bargaining
representative.85
F. ADEQUATE PROOF OF MAJORITY REPRESENTATION WHERE NO
ELECTION IS HELD
Section 9 (c) of the act empowers the Board to certify representatives
with or without an election. If a labor organization can present
evidence which the Board considers adequate proof that such
organization represents a majority of the employees in an appnopriate
unit, it may be certified without the necessity of an election.
Under section 8 (5) and 9 (a) of the act, it is an unfair labor
practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively and
exclusively with representatives selected by the majority of the employees
in an appropriate unit. The proof which the Board requires
as to majority representation for certification without an election or
for a finding of an unfair labor practice under sections 8 (5) and 9
(a) of the act is essentially the same and hence the two types of cases
can appropriately be discussed together.
Testimony at the hearing by a majority of the employees appearing
in person to the effect that they desired a particular labor organization
to represent them has been held to constitute proof of a
majority. Such evidence was relied npon by the Board in Matter
of Subwrban Lumber Company," a proceeding under section 8 (5),
as well as in Matter of Wilmington Transportation Company," a
proc'eeding under section 9 (c).
Evidence that the employer has admitted that a particular labor
organization is the choice of a majority of his employees has also
been relied upon by the Board. Such an admission may take the
form of a stipulation entered into at the hearing whereby the parties
agree upon the number of members in the union, 88 or of a declaration
tion which had received the greater number of votes. As we have indicated in previous
proceedings, we will not require an organization to take part in an election against its will.
The procedure followed here was designed simply to ascertain that the organization affected
was not opposed to the inclusion of its name on the run-off ballot. No purpose would have
been served by having copies of the Amalgamated's request served upon any of the other
parties • * *."
'As to the assertion that the first election closed the proceedings, there is nothing
in the Act to support such a contention. The Board's procedure is fully within the authorization
of Section 9 of the Act to 'take a secret ballot of employees, or utilize any other
suitable method to ascertain such representation.'
86 Matter of Fedders Manufacturing Company and Lodge No. 1755, Amalgamated El880-
ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North Amertea, through the Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, 3 N. L. R. B. 818, 4 N. L. R. B. 770, and 5 N. L. R. B. 260; Matter
of Zellerbach Paper Company and International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union,
Local 1-26, 4 N. L. R. B. 348 and 5 N. L. R. B. 308. For a case in which a form of run-off
election did not result in a majority choice, see Matter of J. J. Little it Ives Company and
Bindery Women's Union, Local No. 43, 6 N. L. R. B. 411 and 7 N. L. R. B. 12, where
a consent election held pursuant to an agreement between the parties rather than to an
order of the Board was inconclusive because neither organization received a majority of
the votes cast. Since the consent election was conducted by the Board's agents, in the
same manner and under the same rules as elections ordered by the Board, and since the
unit used in that election was found to be appropriate, the Board held that there was no
necessity for another election offering the employees the same choice. A run-off election
was ordered to determine whether or not the employees within the appropriate unit desired
to be represented by the organization which received the most votes in the consent election.
The results of this run-off election showed that no bargaining representative had been
selected by a majority of the employees, and consequently the Board dismissed the petition
for investigation and certification.
93 Matter of Suburban Lumber Company and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 676, 3 N. L. R. B. 194.
37 Matter of Wilmington Transportation Company and In/and Boatmen's Union of the
Pacific, San Pedro Division, 4 N. L. R. B. 750.
a& Matter of Hat Corporation of America and United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers
International Union, 3 N. L. B. B. 931 ; Matter of International Harvester Company and
Die Sinkers Local No. 527, Affiliated WWI'', the American Federation of Labor, 6 N. L. R. B.