1 - National Labor Relations Board
1 - National Labor Relations Board
1 - National Labor Relations Board
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