State Ex Rel. American Federation, Etc. v. Hanson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentLoring, Chief Justice
Under the provisions of M. S. A. 179.16, the conciliator ordered an election to determine whether the employes wished to be represented by the AFL or the CIO.
A balloting was conducted December 9, 1947. This balloting resulted in 400 votes cast, one of which was conceded by all parties to be void. Of the remaining 399 votes, 199 were for the CIO and 200 or 199 votes for the AFL, depending upon whether the one ballot here in controversy was rightly ruled out as void.
Section 179.16, entitled “Representatives for Collective Bargaining,” subd. 2, provides that the conciliator “may take a secret…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Elwell v. ComstockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- State v. SederstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Hunt v. CampbellArizona Supreme Court · 1917
- Truelsen v. HugoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Evans v. ReiserUtah Supreme Court · 1931
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.