NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

156 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of A. Zerega's Sorts, Inc., 67 where each of the rival organizations submitted
membership cards signed by a majority of the employees and
an examination of the cards disclosed that a great majority of them
were duplications, the Board found that there was not sufficient evidence
to certify either organization. In Matter of Minneapolis-
Moline Power Implement Company, 68 two prior consent elections
had produced contrary results and had ended in protests being filed
by the losing organization. In view of the unsettled conditions
arising out of these protested elections, the Board issued a direction
of election and held that petitions signed by a majority of the employees
after the second consent election reaffirming their desire to
be represented by one of the rival organizations could not be accepted
as sufficient proof of a majority.
Evidence offered for the purpose of proving that a majority of the
employees have designated a bargaining representative may also be
unsatisfactory because the record does not indicate the exact number
of employees who constitute the appropriate unit, as in Matter of
H. E. Fletcher Co., 69 Matter of Lidz Brothers, Incorporated," and
Matter of Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co., Inc."- In Matter of Tennessee-
Schuylkill Cororation, 72 the Board held that no adequate showing of
a majority hac been made because no pay roll of the employer was
introduced into evidence 73 and the record disclosed no comparison at
any time of the membership application cards submitted in evidence
and any pay roll of the employer.
G. THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING
Section 9 (b) of the act provides that—
The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to insure to employees
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining,
and otherwise to effectuate the policies of this act, the unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit,
or subdivision thereof.
Such a determination is required in two types of cases: (1) Cases
involving petitions for certification of representatives, pursuant to
section 9 (c) of the act, and (2) cases involving complaints charging
that an employer has refused to bargain collectively with the repre-
Steel Workers Organizing Committee. 7 N. L. R. B. 340; Matter of Armour ct Company
and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No.
413, 5 N. L. R. B. 975; Matter of Holland Reiger Division of Apex Electric Co. and United
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, 6 N. L. R. B. 156; Matter of Pier Machine
P7orke, Inc. and Industrial Union of Marine and Ship Building Workers of America,
Local No. 13, 7 N. L. R. B. 401.
01 Matter of A. Zercga's Sons, Inc. and Committee for Industrial Organization on behalf
of The Employees of A. Zerega's Sons, Inc., 5 N. L. R. B. 496.
, 43 Matter of Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Company and International Association
of Machinists. Local No. 1037, 7 N. L. R. B. 840.
ee Matter of H. E. Fletcher Co., and Granite Cutters' International Association of
America, 5 N. L. R. B. 729.
7° Matter of Lidz Brothers, Incorporated and United Wholesale Employees, (Local No.
65), 5 N. L. It. B. 757.
71 Matter of Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co., Inc. and United Bakery and Confectioner) Workers,
5 N. L. R. B. 59.
" Matter of Tennessee-Schuylkill Corporation and International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers, Local No. 384, 5 N. L. R. B. 65.
73 But an employer cannot, merely by refusing to produce a pay roll, prevent the determination
of the question of whether a majority of the employees have designated and
selected a bargaining representative. See, for instance, Matter of Blackstone Manufacturing
Company and International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1240, affiliated with the
American Federation or Leber, 7 N. I.,. B. B. 11.69,