Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Representation Proceedings 47other ballots when it was deposited in the ballot box, the majorityfurther ruled that it would issue a certification of representativeonly if a majority plus one, or more, voted in favor of unionrepresentation. Thus, the disputed ballot could not be determinativeand, as no other valid objection was established against theunion, no valid reason existed for denying such certification ofrepresentative.' 8Member Stephens, dissenting in part, agreed with certain propositionsof ballot secrecy, but found that the principle of ballotsecrecy is not absolute. He pointed out that the Board will counta single determinative challenged ballot even though that willreveal the vote of that employee. 17 Here, he pointed out that,although the "confused" voter had revealed his vote to anotheremployee who had already voted, the ballot was not shown tohave been revealed to anyone waiting to vote. In circumstanceswhere the ballot was subsequently commingled with others inthe ballot box, he disagreed with the majority's "scheme to attemptto void the unidentifiable ballot."C. Expedited ElectionIn Hassett Storage Warehouse, 18 the Board found that a RegionalDirector had properly conducted an expedited election inaccordance with the provisions of Section 8(b)(7)(C) among employeesof an employer who were represented by an incumbentunion. The employer in this case had withdrawn recognitionfrom the picketing incumbent union after all the unit employeeshad crossed the picket line and announced that they no longerwished to be represented by, or remain members of, the union.When the union continued picketing, the employer filed a petitionfor an expedited election under Section 8(b)(7)(C). Theunion opposed the election on the ground that the expeditedelection procedure of Section 8(b)(7)(C) "is applicable only toinitial organizational efforts and does not apply to picketing byan incumbent Union." However, in its decision the Board found,in agreement with the Regional Director, that the proscriptionsof Section 8(b)(7)(C) are not limited to initial organizational activities,and that the "Union's continued picketing in the face ofthe unit employees' clear and unequivocal rejection of theUnion's representation constitutes the type of lop down' organizingwhich Congress sought to limit by enacting Section8(b)(7)(C) of the Act." 1 9"In the event the revised tally resulted in a majority against the union or in a tie vote, the electionwould be set aside based on meritorious objections filed by the union.'7 e.g., Lemon Drop Inn, 269 NLRB 1037, 1009, 1025 (1984), enfd. on other grounds 752 F.2d323 (8th Cit. 1985)."287 NLRB No. 75 (Chairman Dotson and Members Johansen and Babson).' 9 Citing NLRB v. Iron Workers Local 103 (Higdon Contracting), 434 U.S. 335 (1978).