Kennecott Copper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 370 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate on a departmental basis.16 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petitions in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1545, 35-RC-1549, and 35-RC-1561.
We shall direct elections in the following voting groups :
(1) All employees of the toolroom departments, including lead-
men, toolmakers A and B, toolroom machine hands 1 and 2, machine
shop heat treaters and welders, but excluding inspectors, cutter-
sharpeners and cutter-sharpener learners, all other employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All boilerhouse department employees, including the leadman
and boilerhouse attendants, but excluding all other employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of employees in voting group (1) or (2) vote for
the Union seeking to represent them separately, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit,
and the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to
issue a certification of representatives to the Union seeking and se-
lected by such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds
to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event
a majority do not vote for the Union seeking to represent them sepa-
rately, these employees remain a part of the existing unit and the
Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to
such effect.
[The Board dismissed the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1545,
35-RC-1549, and 35-RC-1561.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
16 Grand River Chemical Division of Deere & Company, 111 NLRB 770, 773. Cf.
American Potash & Chemical Corporation, sui)ra.
Kennecott Copper Corporation , Ray Mines Division and Inter-
national Union of Mine , Mill & Smelter Workers, Ind., Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-534. December 10, 1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed on August 5, 1958, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on August 19, 1958, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the National
Labor Relations Board, among the employees in the stipulated unit.
Following the election, the Regional Director issued and served on
the parties a tally of ballots, which shows that of approximately 85
eligible voters, 37 votes were cast for the Petitioner, 40 for United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 2 for International Chemical
122 NLRB No. 59.
KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION 371
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and none against the participating labor
organizations. There were no void or challenged ballots.
On August 25, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the
conduct of the election. The Regional Director conducted an investi-
gation of the objections, and on October 24, 1958, issued his report
on objections, in which he recommended that the Petitioner's objec-
tions be overruled in their entirety, and that Steelworkers be certi-
fied. The Petitioner has filed exceptions only to so much of the
Regional Director's report as relates to the voting eligibility of one
employee, Gardner Heaps. In the absence of exceptions to the other
findings of the Regional Director, we adopt them pro forma.
The Board 1 has considered the exceptions and the entire record in
the case, and finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenors, United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, and International Chemical Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production employees at the Em-
ployer's Hayden, Arizona, smelter, including brickmasons and filter
plant employees, but excluding office employees, professional and
technical employees, maintenance employees including mechanical
puncher machinists, oilers, general maintenance repairmen and
helpers, power and water department employees, waste heat boiler
operators, electrical department employees, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. Gardner Heaps' name appeared on the eligibility list, although
he was in fact ineligible to vote, having been first employed after the
eligibility date. He cast an unchallenged ballot at the election. The
Petitioner concedes that the Employer's action in listing Heaps
among the eligible employees was an honest error, but contends that
Steelworkers knew that Heaps was ineligible to vote but kept its
knowledge secret. The Petitioner does not allege that the Board agent
in charge of the election knew or should have known of Heaps' in-
eligibility. The Regional Director's investigation reveals that the
unions participating in the election had a full and equal opportunity
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Rodgers, Bean,
and Panning].
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to check the eligibility list. Because Heaps' status was ascertainable
by the Petitioner, through its members in the plant, we will apply
the Board's usual rule that the burden of checking the accuracy of
eligibility lists rests with the participating unions, and not with the.
Board. The Petitioner's belated objection to Heaps' ballot is in the
nature of a postelection challenge and will not be entertained.2
As Steelworkers has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast,
we shall certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the stipulated unit.
[The Board certified United Steelworkers of America, AFI^-CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit described in paragraph 4, above.]
2 Calcor Corporation, 106 NLRB 539; Earl Fruit Company, 107 NLRB 64.
Haberle Engineering and Manufacturing Co. and International
Association of Machinists , District 108, AFL-CIO. Case No.
18-CA-25&5. December 11, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 19, 1958, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding, in
effect, that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the com-
plaint be dismissed. in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
and briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, we shall dismiss
the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE -
Upon charges filed by the International Association of Machinists , District 108,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National: Labor
122 NLRB No. 64.