Continental Bus System, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 599 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. 599
CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM , INC.} and BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILROAD TRAINMEN, INC., Petitioner . Case No. 30-RC-
822. April 30, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISIONS ORDER, AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' an elec-
tion by secret ballot was conducted by mail during the period
between January 6 and January 23, 1953, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the above-
mentioned Decision. Thereafter a tally of ballots was fur-
nished the parties, showing that of approximately 55 eligible
voters, 2 voted for the Petitioner; 18 voted for the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Locals Nos. 222, 16, and 17, AFL;' and 32 voted for
the Amalgamated Association,of Street, Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employees of America, Local No. 1468,
AFL.4 There were 2 challenged ballots and 1 void ballot. On
January 30, 1953, the Employer and Teamsters, respectively,
filed objections to election and conduct affecting election and
objection to conduct of election. Separate objections to conduc-
tion of election were filed by Teamsters' Local 222 on Feb-
ruary 2, 1953.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation of the foregoing
objections and, on March 9, 1953, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the
objections raised no substantial and material issues with
respect to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the
results of the election and recommended that the objections
be overruled and dismissed. Thereafter', the Employer and
Teamsters filed timely exceptions to the report on objections;
and, in addition, the Employer filed a petitionfoi reconsidera-
tion and further hearing and a statement supplementing
Employer's exceptions to report on objections to election aad
petition for reconsideration.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman
Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
I The name is hereby amended from Rocky Mountain Lines of Continental Bus System, Inc.
It appears from the Employer 's motion to reconsider and exceptions that the Employer's
name should have been so amended at the hearing . However , we reject the contention of the
Employer that the petition should be dismissed because it did not correctly name the em-
ployer of the employees sought.
2Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
$ Hereinafter referred to as Teamsters.
4 Hereinafter referred to as Amalgamated.
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petition for Reconsideration
In its petition for reconsideration the Employer contends that
the unit finding in the instant case was erroneous because it
differs from that in a previous case involving the same Em-
ployer and employees-6 In that case the Board directed a
Globe election among the same employees that are involved in
this case, in order to determine whether they desired to
constitute a separate unit or to be incorporated in a systemwide
unit of employees of the Employer. In that election the em-
ployees expressed a desire to constitute a separate unit,
which the Board found to be appropriate under the circum-
stances . Teamsters was certified as the representative of
the employees in such unit and executed a contract for such
employees. At the hearing in the instant case no labor organi-
zation sought to represent these employees as part of a
broader unit, and the parties stipulated that the unit found
appropriate in the former case was appropriate in the instant
case. Accordingly, we find no merit in the contention, now
made for the first time by the Employer, that our unit find-
ing herein is erroneous.
The Employer also contends that the Board erred in find-
ing in its Decision and Direction of Election herein that the
Employer's 3-year contract with Teamsters was of unreason-
able duration and so did not bar the petition herein. The Em-
ployer moves that the record be reopened to permit the in-
troduction of further evidence to support its contention that
3-year contracts are customary in its industry. All parties
had ample opportunity at the hearing in this case to introduce
all pertinent evidence on this issue and they were on notice
from the Decision and Direction of Election herein that the
evidence offered at the hearing on this issue was deemed by
the Board insufficient to establish that 3-year contracts were
customary in the industry. However, it was not until after
the election was held and the results announced that the in-
stant request for opportunity to put in further evidence on
this point was first made.
In view of these circumstances, we do not believe we would
be warranted in reopening the hearing at this time.6 The
Employer's petition for reconsideration and further hearing
is therefore denied.
Objections and Exceptions
In their objections the Employer and Teamsters make the
following contentions:
(1) That the Regional Director erred in conducting the elec-
tion by mail over the objections of the Employer and Teamsters,
because the secrecy and integrity of the ballot could not be
maintained in such an election and there was precedent for a
manual election in the bargaining unit; (2) that the ballots
5 Continental Bus System , Inc., 84 NLRB 670.
6 We note, also, that the contract urged as a bar will expire, in any event , on May 16, 1953.
CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. 601
were in the hands of the voters long enough to permit exertion
of undue influence; (3) that the secrecy of the ballot was not
maintained, in that some voters marked their ballots in the
presence of others and the freedom of choice of voters was
interfered with; and (4) that a number of ballots appeared to
have been marked "with the same writing instrument and in
the same manner."* The Employer and Teamsters urged that
for all or any of these reasons the election should be set aside.
In his report the Regional Director found no merit in any of
the objections and recommended that they be overruled. The
Employer and Teamsters excepted to all his findings, except
those relating to objection (4), and to his recommendations.
(1) In his report the Regional Director states that his deci-
sion to conduct the election by mail was based on the fact that
manual balloting would have involved holding the election at
several different locations and would have required considerable
travel on the part of the eligible voters and Board agents. He
concluded that in view of the season of the year, and the
possibility of adverse weather and road conditions, a repre-
sentative manual ballot might not be obtained, and that a
mail ballot would both insure a representative vote and
result in substantial saving of time and money for the Govern-
ment.
On January 6, 1953, ballots were mailed to the 52 em-
ployees appearing on the eligibility list. Two other ballots,
later challenged, were mailed to employees claimed to be
eligible by Teamsters, whose names did not appear on the
original list. January 23, 1953, was set as the deadline for
receipt of ballots in the Regional Director's office, and on that
date the ballots were opened and counted in the presence of
observers. Ballots were received from all persons appearing
on the eligibility list.
The Board has often held that the Regional Director has
broad discretion in determining the method by which elec-
tions shall be conducted, and may in the exercise of his
discretion conduct an election by mail ballot, even where not
specifically authorized to do so.8 Nor does the fact that a
manual ballot had been conducted previously in the unit
preclude the Regional Director from conducting an election
by mail. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Regional Direc-
tor did not abuse his discretion under the circumstances of
the instant case.
(2) As to the contention that the ballots were in the hands of
the voters for an unduly long time, the Regional Director found
that an analysis of the mailing and return dates of the ballots
of the 52 eligible voters showed that the total elapsed time
between the date of mailing and the post-mark date of return
was 326 days or an average of 64 days per ballot. He concluded,
and we agree, that this is not unreasonably long. Absent a
7In addition, the objections reiterated the contentions made in the Employer 's petition for
reconsideration , discussed in the text , above.
BSouthwestern Michigan Broadcasting Company, 94 NLRB 30.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
showing of specific abuses during the time that the ballots
were in the voters' hands, there is no merit in this objection.
(3) The Regional Director investigated allegations that a
representative of Amalgamated suggested that the employees
get together and mark their ballots and that a representative
of Teamsters had called anumber of employees into Teamsters'
office to mark their ballots. He found no evidence to support
these allegations. While he found that one employee had marked
his ballot in Teamsters' office, the employee stated that he
did so out of the sight of other persons in the office. The
Employer and Teamsters in their exceptions allege generally
that secrecy of the ballot was not maintained and that the free-
dom of choice of the employees was interfered with. In addi-
tion, the Employer alleges that one employee voted his ballot in
the office of Teamsters and the marked ballot was in plain view
of several union representatives. The Employer also says that
it has reason to believe that other such incidents occurred.
Assuming that the incident alleged actually occurred, we find
it insufficient to warrant setting aside the election. This
isolated instance could not have affected the results of the
election. The other general allegations of violation of secrecy,
unsupported by any specific instances, we find insufficient to
warrant the holding of a hearing or setting aside the election.
Accordingly, we will overrule the exceptions to the Regional
Director's report on objections. As Amalgamated received a
majority of the ballots, we will certify it as the representative
of the employees.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for reconsidera-
tion and further hearing herein be, and it hereby is, denied.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Amalgamated Association
of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Local No. 1468, AFL, has been designated and
selected by a majority of all bus operators employed by
the Employer in its Rocky Mountain Lines Division, 9 exclud-
ing all other employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act as their representative for
purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive
representative of all the employees included in the foregoing
unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment.
9 The unit description has been changed from that in the Decision and Direction of Elections
to correspond with the amendment of the Employer's name in this Supplemental Decision.