NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

154- THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining. In finding this argument to be without merit,
the Board said :
* * * it is not our province to go into the mental processes of these employees
who signed application cards. It is'uncontradicted that these employees
knew that they were applying for membership in the Union. By signing applications
for membership they designated the Union as their collective bargaining
representative.
Another question concerning the adequacy of signed application
cards was presented in Matter of Richfield Oil Corporation," in
which the employer directed attention to the fact that many of the
applications were executed long prior to the date of the filing of
the petition. The Board, however, concluded that the dates borne
by the application cards offered no obstacle to a certification, in view
of the considerations that the union involved was a long-established
labor organization, that it was to be expected that its members continued
their membership over a period of years, and that there was
testimony that the employees whose names appeared on the application
cards were members in good standing.
Still other types of evidence have also been accepted by the Board
as proof that a majority of the employees have designated and selected
a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. In
Matter of United States Stamping Company," a certification was
issued by the Board on February 11, 1936, based upon the results of
an election which it had conducted on January 20, 1936. In finding
that the respondent company had after February 11, 1936, and
on September 28, October 6, and October 9, 1936, refused to bargain
collectively with the union which had been certified, the Board held
that—
In the absence of proof to the contrary, there is the presumption that the
majority secured by the union in the election of January 20, 1936, continued.
The results of an election were also relied upon in Matter of Scandore
Paper Box Co., Ine., 58 where a consent election held under the supervision
of the Board's rwional office resulted in the union's selection
as the bargaining representative by a large majority.59
Although other forms of evidence establishing majority representation
were present in each case, in Matter of Combustion Engineering
Company, Inc.," and in Matter of Century Mills, Inc.," the
Board pointed to the participation by a majority of the employees in
a strike called by the labor organization in question as an additional
• Matter of Richfield Oil Corporation and Marine Engineers Beneficial Association No,
79, 7 N. L. It. B. 639.
r'Matter of United States Stamping Company and Enamel Workers Union, No. 18130,
5 N. L. It. B. 172.
• Matter of Scandore Paper Bow Co.. Inc. and Continental Container Corporation and
Paper Bow Makers Union, Local 18239, 4 N. L. It. B. 910. .
65 Matter of Armour tE Company and International Association of Machinists, Local
02, 5 N. L. It. B. 535, the Board accepted the results of a prior consent election since it
was stipulated that the record should include the ballots cast by the employees in question
in the consent election and which had been segregated and placed in a sealed envelope.
However, in Matter of Marlin-Rockwell Corporation and Local No. 338, United Automobile
Workers of America, 5 N. L. It. B. 206, the Board refused to certify representatives
on the basis of the results of a consent election because a large number of employees
failed to vote on account of delay in the opening of the polls and because the employees
eligible to vote in the consent election differed somewhat from the employees in the unit
which the Board found to be appropriate.
Matter of Combustion Engineering Company, Inc. and Steel Workers Organizing Committee,
for and in behalf of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of
North America, 5 N. L. R. B. 344.
e'Matter of Century Mills, Inc. and South Jersey Joint Board, of the International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, 5 N. L. It. B. 807.