Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc., 6 (1951)

CLIPPARD INSTRUMENT LABORATORY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER.

Case No. 9-RC-1038. April N4,1951

Decision and Order Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election ' issued on December 21, 1950, an election was conducted in this proceeding on January 17, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.

The tally of ballots shows 60 valid ballots cast for the Petitioner;

9 valid ballots cast for the Intervenor; 2 52 valid ballots cast against, both labor organizations ; and 24 challenged ballots. the Intervenor filed timely objections to the conduct of the election, alleging that, about January 16, 1951, the Employer polled its employees during working hours to determine whether they desired to be represented by a labor organization, and promised them benefits if they voted against such representation.3 The Intervenor requested that the election be set aside.

On February 28, 1951, the Regional Director issued his report on challenged ballots and objections to the election. The Regional Director, finding that the Employer's conduct raised substantial and material issues with respect to the election, although the Employer refused to admit or deny the facts as found, recommended that the election be set aside, but made no investigation or recommendation concerning the challenged ballots.

On March 9, 1951, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report, agreeing with his recommendation that the election be set aside (for the reason that it was inconclusive), but excepting to his failure to pass on the validity of the challenged ballots.

The Employer contends in its exceptions that the Regional Director should make an investigation of the challenged ballots on the ground, in substance, that because the voters whose ballots were challenged may vote at a new election, a present determination of their voting eligibility will then be advantageous. We do not agree. Employees who voted and whose ballots were challenged at the first election might not appear at the polls to vote at a new election. If, however, they do vote at the new election, it does not follow that their ballots will be challenged, or that the challenges to their ballots, if there be any, will be for the same reasons as those given at the first election. We therefore see no advantage in resolving these...