Legal Document

329 U.S. 324 67 Supreme Court Reporter 91 L.Ed. 322 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDv.A. Judge TOWER CO. Number 60. Argued Nov. 21, 1946. Decided Dec. 23, Mr.Gerhard Pacific KF135 P2 Van Arkel, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. John T. Noonan, Boston, Mass., respondent. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion Court. 1 The issue here concerns procedure used in elections under National Labor Relations Act1 which employees choose a statutory representative purposes collective bargaining. Specifically, we must determine propriety Board's refusal to accept an employer's post-election challenge eligibility voter who participated consent election. 2 respondent and union entered into agreement conduct election by secret ballot on May 5, 1944, supervision regional director, whether at respondent's Roxbury plant unit defined desired be represented union. was approved director provided that held 'in accordance with Act, Rules Regulations, customary procedures policies Board.' 3 set forth qualifications participation Only those appeared pay-roll April were eligible; included did not work time because they ill, or vacation, temporarily laid off, armed forces. had duty furnishing accurate list eligible voters, together ineligible employees.2 voters duly submitted 1, 1944. 4 further both could have observers polling places assist handling election, verify tally. If challenges made if determinative results investigate report thereon. All objections 'to ballot' determination representatives based thereof' filed within five days after issuance 'Tally Ballots.' sustained objections, he power void order new final binding upon any question, 'including questions as raised party hereto relating manner election.' Cf. Article III, §§ 10 12, Regulations (Series 3, effective 26, 1943). 5 balloting took place this agreement. After ballots counted, signed Ballots,' certified that, 230 valid votes 116 cast 114 against it, one other being challenged union.3 Four later, 9, counsel wrote subsequent 'it came attention management Company Mrs. Jennie Atlantic Kane, persons voted employee Company.'4 letter explained Kane employed from March 16, 1943, through 24, but latter date she nev r reported again never except purpose voting 5. It admitted respondent, 'not advised intention her part leave their employ, assumed continued among and, therefore, exclude believed vote.' accordingly Kane's right vote, well her. A hearing requested passing proved vote union, would become material result election; condition, its vote. 6 matters before director. He subsequently found name assumption ill quit job; reaspondent no attempt between remove list, although prior received mail notice claim unemployment compensation; polls when presence; these counted been properly conducted. also evidence conflicting actual status.5 But concluded circumstances waived object ground. This it unnecessary him rule previously since affect result. thus majority exclusive appropriate unit. 7 thereafter refused bargain question. Upon complaint issued Board, denied ever designated asserted inconclusive subject subtracted union's total opened overruling outcome tie usual proceedings, disturb rulings arising out 'unless such appear unsupported substantial are arbitrary capricious' grounds disturbing ruling present instant case. As alternative ground action, Board director's Circumstances permit attack status announced 'is complete accord extablished principles policy Board'—which excluded 'because our belief otherwise converted definitive resolution preference protracted disregarded suppressed contingency adverse result.' See Matter Norris, Inc., 63 N.L.R.B. 502, 512. ordered cease desist unfair labor practice take affirmative action bargaining collectively 60 1414. 8 First Circuit Appeals, however, aside order. 152 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 275. construed Act making jurisdictional prerequisite employer has committed refusing deal should chosen fact employees. may crucial date, there without jurisdiction find guilty violation § 8(5). We granted certiorari, 328 827, 66 1011, importance matter administration conflict below reached Sixth Appeals versus Capital Greyhound Lines, 140 754. 9 noted before, Congress entrusted wide degree discretion establishing safeguards necessary insure fair free choice Southern S.S. company 316 31, 37, 62 886, 890, 86 1246; Waterman Co., 309 206, 226, 493, 503, 84 704; Falk Corporation, 308 453, 458, 307, 310, 396. Section 9(c) authorizes 'Take employees, utilize suitable method ascertain representatives.' In carrying task, course, act so give effect principle 9(a), sanctioned governmental practices, business procedure, whole philosophy democratic institutions.' S.Rep. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., Page 13. is framework adopt promulgate rules regulations employees' recorded accurately, efficiently speedily. rule, does foreclose practical adjustments designed protect machinery t e ever-present dangers abuse fraud. Indeed, unless made, process perverted fail reflect will electorate. One commonest protective devices require casting ballots, all uncontested given absolute finality. political elections, device often involves registration lists closed some day; registrants during intervening period polls. Thereafter too late. cutting off conceivably counting thought far outweighed attendant allowance indiscriminate To challenges, said, invade secrecy ballot, destroy finality result, invite unwarranted dilatory claims defeated candidates 'keep perpetually courts same excitements, strifes, animosities characterize hustings, ought, peace community, safety stability institutions, terminate close polls.' Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed., 1927), 1416. 11 Long experience demonstrated fairness efficaciousness general once identity lost, validity cannot later challenged. universally recognized consistent process. And generally followed corporate elections. adoption therefore indicated securing representatives. 12 Moreover, question peculiarly situations confronting atmosphere charged animosity, tempt losing make undue attacks elegibility delay results. Such extend opportunity inclusion pro-union anti-union men hope might escape voting, giving rise charge ineligibility possibility decisive factor. privacy process, great industrial world, frequently destroyed challenges. incur disfavor reaction inquiries. 13 unable say, prohibition justification law reason. gives desirable yet affords interested parties reasonable voter. exception where agents benefiting entertain know voter's suppress facts.6 appears apply fairly equitably light realities involved. 14 reliance court requirement misplaced. true refuse only un formal sound exercise discretion. prohibiting rules. When applied properly, deprive unlawful failure collectivly. That even ascertainable different truth known. pretend guarantee eligible. simply justifiable adjustment 15 There basis case disregarding respect. honestly mistaken relevance whatever use policy. nothing constituted waiver Board. On contrary, expressly stated 'the Board,' include provision filing quite separate obviously application here. Objections two things electoral parlance. relate working mechanism accurately fairly. Challenges, hand, concern prospective voters. uses clear distinction disregard it.7 16 Neither record nor past history justifies interests inadequately protected. Due employees; despite lack provisions agreement, indication prohibited examining challenging Nor competent objection, either adopted ballots.8 bound perform functions behalf including sentiments. absence discriminated preparing raising timely issues, say represented. 17 Since rest decision solely discuss terms apart 18 follows erred enforce full. 19 Reversed. 20 FRANKFURTER concurs 21 JACKSON, dissenting. 22 affected complaining victorious & N Immigration Nationality Decisions agree Court's decision. third usual, forgotten interest here—those want 23 seeking organize plant. furnish each attend, anit-organization challenge. now points probably invalid. invalid, allowed decide 24 undisputed employee—presumably anti-union, circumstance objecting—raised carried Company's absent illness, had, fact, left employ return. true, qualified 25 cast, holds can inquiry validity. Comparison public specious, every citizen usually up available advance. No comparable opposed exist here, though 26 takes position protection, necessity similar protection Despite contracting careful provide themselves, assumes interest. says assume adequately represented, closing door prejudiced representation rights objection wrong consummated illegal ballot. And, members minority standing bring problems hear grievance, all, identical raises. 27 fears 'extend payroll list' voiding unwanted Of opportunities manipulation collusion favored groups, fraud, honest mistakes. 28 i concerned keep pure, why proof corruption mistake operates group, it: wit, employer? put end intermingled indistinguishable. justify inquiry, adequate cast. long organization, allowing urged 29 course satisfactory. initiated recognizes, instances coincides scarcely think more perfect encouraging unscrupulousness, than invest courts. Here half forced were, failed do so. really wanted discourage collusion, mistakes, integrity majority, hold looked whenever irregularity 49 Statutes-at-Large 449, United States Code KF62 151 et seq., Annotated KF65 U5 seq. Among discharged cause rehired reinstated agaifnst recited nov come attention, however 28, Division Employment Security Commonwealth Massachusetts benefits stating, connection claim, Tower March, reason leaving 'could continue heavy bundles job'. learned day, visited Office placed employment.' An agent interviewed told that: 'On Unemployment Compensation benefits, thinking entitled my illness. At time, since, considered myself release intend return regained strength. termination Company. * presented still consider Co.' pointed statement, investigation confirmed employment bundles. note 4, supra. Wayne Hale, 1393; Beggs Cobb, 193. 'The differentiating (to) ordinarily guise Great Lakes Steel 510. factory superintendent testified unidentified 'objected Kane' several longer receipt compensation mailed testimony merely show 'how became question' eligibility. compelled

Classification Label: 6