07.02.2015 Views

1 - National Labor Relations Board

1 - National Labor Relations Board

1 - National Labor Relations Board

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Representation Cases 71<br />

vidual employees or nonemployees and that their conduct cannot<br />

probatively be attributed either to employer or to the union. The<br />

significant fact is that a free election was thereby rendered impossible."<br />

A similar result was reached in Landis Morgan Transportation,<br />

91 where certain acts of sabotage committed by unknown<br />

persons prior to the election precluded "a rational coerced expression<br />

of choice."<br />

d. Secrecy of the Ballot<br />

Section 9(c) (1) of the Act requires all <strong>Board</strong> elections to be<br />

conducted by secret ballot. The <strong>Board</strong> enforced adherence to this<br />

policy in T & G Mfg.," where it refused to accept the stipulation<br />

of the parties that an employee's challenged but commingled ballot<br />

was cast for the union. In its view acceptance of such an<br />

agreement would not be consistent with the <strong>Board</strong>'s purpose "of<br />

preserving the secrecy of the election process." As stated, "There<br />

is no way of ascertaining with certainty how the vote was cast.<br />

We will not permit solicitation of such information from the<br />

voter, nor allow the parties to stipulate how a voter exercised<br />

his franchise, for this would create the very opportunity for<br />

collusion, coercion, and election abuse the <strong>Board</strong> is committed to<br />

prevent."<br />

Similarly protective of the election process was the decision<br />

in J. Weingarten, 93 where the regional director had begun his investigation<br />

of a determinative ballot challenged by an incumbent<br />

union intervening in the election because of the alleged supervisory<br />

status of the voter. In sustaining the regional director's<br />

denial of a request, made during the investigation, to withdraw<br />

the challenge, the <strong>Board</strong> stated :<br />

Where, as here, the challenged ballot is still uncounted and not commingled<br />

with the other ballots, and the Regional Director's incomplete investigation<br />

has revealed that in all likelihood, the challenged voter is ineligible to vote<br />

because he is a supervisor, we hold that it is incumbent upon the Regional<br />

Director to complete his investigation and to resolve the issue as to the voter's<br />

status, notwithstanding a request to withdraw the challenge.<br />

pi General Truckdrivera, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Loc. 980, Teamsters, 177 NLRB<br />

No. 51.<br />

" 173 NLRB No. 231.<br />

" 172 NLRB No. 228.<br />

389-517 0 - 70 - 0

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!