Petitions for Board elections are filed in the regional office in the area in which the plant or business involved is located. The Board provides standard forms for the filing of petitions in all types of

cases.

During the 1950 fiscal year, 9,279 petitions for representation elections were filed in the Board's offices. During this period, the Board conducted 5,731 representation elections, in which 899,848 employees were eligible to vote. Bargaining representatives were selected in 4,223 of these elections. Collective bargaining representatives were thereby designated to represent a total of 759,000 employees, or approximately 84 percent of those involved in Board elections. More than 72 percent of the elections was conducted by agreement of the parties, without the necessity for formal decisional action by the Board Members. The Board Members, however, were called upon to make decisions in 2,483 representation cases during the year. In these decisions, they directed representation elections in 1,630 cases.

The act requires also that, before a bargaining agent may effectuate a contract with an employer for a union shop, a majority of the eligible employees must authorize it in a Board-conducted referendum. The act permits a union shop in which employees are required to become members of the union not less than 30 days after they are employed or 30 days after a union-shop contract is made, whichever is the later. Under this provision of the act, the Board conducted 5,591 union-shop authorization polls during the 1950 fiscal year. In these polls, 1,072,917 employees were eligible to vote. The employees authorized negotiation of union-shop contracts in 5,377 elections, or about 96 percent of those conducted. The bargaining agents were thereby authorized to negotiate union-shop contracts covering a total of 1,045,162 employees.

The conditions under which the Board will direct representation elections and union-shop polls are discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

A. The Question of Representation

Proceedings before the Board to determine the choice of employees in the matter of a collective bargaining representative are technically of two types-proceedings to certify a bargaining agent and proceedings to decertify an incumbent bargaining agent. In both types of cases, the Board must determine whether or not a question of the representation of employees exists and whether or not there is sufficient interest in the question among the employees to merit the holding of an

election. If the Board finds that a question of representation exists, it can make a final determination of the employees' choice only by a secret-ballot election.

The Board's proceedings in both types of cases are set in motion by the filing of a petition. The filing of petitions and the proceedings are governed by section 9 (c) of the act. This section provides that a petition either for certification or for decertification may be filed (1) by employees or (2) by an individual or a labor organization on behalf of employees. An employer also may file a petition for a certification proceeding, when he is presented with a claim to recognition as bargaining agent by an individual or a labor organization.

1. Showing of Employee Interest

The first question that arises upon the filing of a petition in either type of representation case is whether there is sufficient support for the petition to merit the holding of an election. This is the first step toward determining whether a question of representation does exist. If the petitioner is an employee or group of employees, or an individual or labor organization acting on behalf of employees, section 9 (c) (1) (A) requires that the petition must allege the support of "a substantial number of employees." In administering this provision, the Board has consistently required a showing that at least 30 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit support the petition. This support may be shown to Board investigators by authorization cards signed by employees or by any other appropriate evidence. The requirement of this "showing of interest" is intended to avoid burdening the Board with the duty of conducting elections in cases where there is little likelihood that a majority representative will be chosen.2

In a representation proceeding initiated by an employer, no showing of interest is required."

Application of the showing of interest requirement frequently calls for determination of two questions: (1) Which parties to the proceed. ing must disclose their interest, and (2) what interest must each show. The statutory requirement applies only to petitioners, but often there is more than one individual or union claiming to represent the same group of employees. Manifestly, it would be impossible to conduct an orderly investigation of a representation question if every party who claimed any kind of interest in the case was allowed to participate in the proceeding. But, to be balanced against this need

1 Statements of Procedure, sec. 202.17. Example: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co., 86 NLRB 437.

* See Fourteenth Annual Report, p. 21; Statements of Procedure, as amended August 18, 1948, sec. 202.17 (p. 42, Board edition).

P. R. Mallory & Co., Inc., 89 NLRB No. 121; J. O. Penny Co.-Store No. 1518, 86 NLRB 920.

4

for an orderly proceeding is the stated policy of the statute to assure employees of "the fullest freedom" in the "designation of representatives of their own choosing." The Board, out of its experience, has developed a number of rules as to the parties which may intervene in representation proceedings. Most common among those who have been held entitled to intervene are individuals or unions holding contracts with the employer which cover all or part of the employees involved, and individuals or unions which claim to represent all or part of the employees. The Board's rules also provide for intervention limited to the extent of the interest of the person or organization seeking intervention."

During the past year, the Board has mainly reaffirmed its longestablished rules regarding the admission of intervenors and the showing of interest required of them. However, it did deal with a number of points which arose for the first time during fiscal 1950.

In one case, the Board reaffirmed its rule that a party which seeks to intervene in order to be placed on the ballot must make some showing of an adequate interest,' such as a current or recent contractual or representative interest in the employees. However, an intervenor seeking the same industrial unit as the petitioner need not make a 30percent interest showing. Nor need a union make a showing if it is claiming to represent a unit substantially the same as that requested by a petitioning employer.10

In general, rival unions contending for representation of substantially different but overlapping units of employees are each required to make full showings of interest in the unit each seeks. In a case where one petition for a production and maintenance unit and other petitions for craft units were filed, the former was dismissed because no 30-percent showing had been made in the larger group." In the Electric Auto-Lite case,12 it was held necessary for an intervening labor organization, which sought a unit appreciably larger than that sought by the petitioner, to file a separate petition or make an administrative showing of interest which would support a petition for the larger unit. In Boeing Airplane Company,13 the Board, reversing its prior practice, ruled that a union which seeks to sever a craft unit from an

14

• Sec. 9 (a).

5 Sec. 1.

"Rules and Regulations, Series 5, as amended, sec. 203.57.

"Norfolk Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 86 NLRB 462.

'Cf. Ninth Annual Report, p. 30; Eleventh Annual Report, p. 10, footnote 10.

• Comwell Co., 88 NLRB No. 148.

10 Westinghouse Electric Corp., 89 NLRB No. 11; General Electric Co., 89 NLRB No. 120. "Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 88 NLRB No. 98.

1987 NLRB 129.

13 Boeing Airplane Co., 86 NLRB 368.

14 Richfield Oil Corp., 59 NLRB 1554; ree also Standard Oil Co. (Ohio), Cleveland Division, 63 NLRB 1248; and General Tire and Rubber Co., 63 NLRB 182.

existing industrial unit must make a 30-percent showing, whether it appears as cross-petitioner or as intervenor.

When a unit different from that sought by the petitioning union is found appropriate and the union's showing of interest is not sufficient in the appropriate unit, the Board will dismiss the petition, without prejudice to its renewal.15 Nor will the Board determine whether a group excluded from an appropriate unit might constitute a separate unit or voting group, where no showing of interest in the group was made.1 If, however, the showing of interest is not sufficient, the petitioner will be permitted to withdraw from the ballot or, if it is the sole union involved, to withdraw its petition altogether." However, the union need not make a separate showing of interest among employees of plants not originally sought but included by the Board in a multiplant unit along with the plant sought.18 In one case, where a majority of the Board held that any of three units might be appropriate-a plant-wide unit requested by the petitioning union, or a separate unit of laborers, then represented by the petitioner, or a separate unit of the remaining plant employees-the petition which sought only the plant unit was dismissed because the petitioner had failed to make a separate showing of interest among the remaining employees whom it sought to merge with the laborers.19

The Board has adhered to its position that the showing of interest is exclusively a matter for administrative determination by the regional director and is not subject to subsequent challenge at any stage of a proceeding 20 for the certification or decertification of a representative, even where it is alleged that the showing is noncurrent,22 fraud

21

15 E. g., Kindy Optical Co., 85 NLRB 940; American District Telegraph Co., 89 NLRB No. 111.

16 R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 88 NLRB No. 120; Jax Beer Co. of Houston, Texas, 89 NLRB No. 153.

17 E. g., Mixer & Co., 86 NLRB 656; Engineering and Research Corp., 90 NLRB No. 6. Cf. Mutual Rough Hat Co., 86 NLRB 440; and The Bailey Department Stores Co., 85 NLRB 312. See also Johnson Optical Co., 85 NLRB 895.

18 The North Electric Mfg. Co., 89 NLRB No. 21.

19 Illinois Cities Water Co., 87 NLRB 109. See also Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., 85 NLRB 902; and see The National Supply Co., 90 NLRB No. 65, where the Board held that a union's showing of interest as to the employees of a group of employers was insufficient standing alone to permit the union to participate in separate elections directed among the employees of the individual employers. The regional director was therefore directed to ascertain the adequacy of the union's showing as to each employer before proceeding to elections. Cf. Belle Vernon Milk Co., 90 NLRB No. 117.

20 Evidence relating to such showing is thus inadmissible at the hearing. North Electric Mfg. Co., 89 NLRB No. 21; P. R. Mallory & Co., Inc., 89 NLRB No. 121. And the refusal to disclose to an employer the field examiner's report on the showing is proper. J. I. Case Co., 87 NLRB 692.

Olin Industries, Winchester Repeating Arms Co. Division, 85 NLRB 396; Hamilton Bros. Logging Co., 89 NLRB No. 207. See R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 88 NLRB No. 120; General Electric Co., 89 NLRB No. 120; The Hoffman Packing Co., Inc., 87 NLRB 601; Auburn Rubber Corp., 85 NLRB 545.

22 E. g., Northern Redwood Lumber Co., 88 NLRB No. 32.

ulent,23 or otherwise invalid." The basic reason is that the results of the election by secret ballot will reveal the actual facts to all the parties and thus protect their interests.

2. Existence of a Question of Representation

Before the Board may direct a representation election, it must find that a question of representation exists.25 Ordinarily, in a certification proceeding, the existence of the question is attested by a specific request for recognition made by the candidate bargaining agent and denied by the employer. If the employer filed the petition, the petition itself constitutes a denial of recognition to the representative seeking bargaining rights. In a decertification proceeding, the Board has ordinarily found that a question exists if the employees in the unit challenge the status of a currently recognized, or previously certified, representative which maintains a claim to recognition.

In a number of instances, however, a bargaining agent which the employer recognized and which the employees did not challenge sought certification. In the first such instance,26 the contention was made that technically no question of representation existed. However, in accordance with the statutory policy of promoting industrial peace by encouraging and stabilizing collective bargaining, the Board declined to adopt this restrictive construction. Instead, it adopted the policy of ordering an election in such a situation if all other prerequisites for an election were met. This policy, the Board noted, is in line with the scheme of the statute, which confers substantial advantages upon certified unions while laying disabilities upon uncertified unions in a number of situations.27

The principle that a question of representation may exist even where a union petitions for an election at a time when it is currently recognized by the employer-was applied on several occasions during the past year.28 Thus a union need not terminate its existing contract with an employer in order to obtain a representation election among employees it represents. Also in several cases, the Board applied

30

Cf. Cushman's Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB No. 49; Grocer's Biscuit Co., Inc., 85 NLRB 603. "E. g., White River Lumber Co., 88 NLRB No. 37 (signatory employees allegedly desired to rescind union authorization); Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., 88 NLRB No. 188 (petitioning union allegedly used same local number as rival union); Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co., 88 NLRB No. 76 (authorizations not checked against employees' signatures in employer's file). 25 Sec. 9 (c) (1).

26 General Box Company, 82 NLRR 678.

27 See secs. 9 (c) (3), 8 (b) (4) (B), (C), and (D) and discussion in General Boz, supra. 28 W & W Pickle & Canning Co., 85 NLRB 262; Atlas Cork Works, Inc., 88 NLRB No. 121; Reuben Gordon Shoe Co., Inc., 89 NLRB No. 40; California Association of Employers, 89 NLRB No. 216; Singer Mfg. Co., 89 NLRB No. 218.

29 Lone Star Producing Company, 85 NLRB 1137.

30 E. g., Detroit Branch, Reliance Steel Division, Detroit Steel Corp., 90 NLRB No. 62. The question whether the petitioning union has previously been denied recognition is not litigable even in a complaint proceeding. J. I. Case Co., 87 NLRB 692. A lapse of almost a year between the initial and final hearing on a petition, caused by proceedings to enforct