Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.

LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO COMPANY 27 in the latest collective bargaining agreements negotiated with the Petitioner, including the employees discussed above,6 excluding all office clerical employees, all retail store employees, all employees presently covered by collective bargaining agreements with other labor organizations, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. All ice cream driver salesmen and truck drivers, all plant per- sonnel, plant porters, checkers, shipping clerks, maintenance men, and garage employees, employed by Beatrice Foods Company, ex- cluding all butter drivers, office clerical employees, all, retail store employees, all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 Except for the inside production employee of Boerger Dairy Farms. LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO COMPANY and TOBACCO WORKERS INTER- NATIONAL UNION A. F. OF L., LOCAL No. 176, PETITIONER. Case No. 34-RC-194. April 26,1951 Amended Decision, Order, and Direction of Election On October 20, 1950, the Board issued a Decision and Order B in which, among other things, it dismissed the petition in the in- stant case on the ground that the air-conditioning employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner did not constitute an appropriate unit. On March 5, 1951, the Petitioner sought reconsideration of this dis- missal, urging that, even though the air-conditioning employees are not considered at this time to constitute a separate appropriate unit, they be given an opportunity to indicate whether or not they wish to be included in the production unit currently represented by the Petitioner. On March 26, 1951, the Board issued a notice to show cause why an election should not be directed in a voting group composed of the air-conditioning employees, to determine whether they desire to be represented by the Petitioner, by the Intervenor, International Association of Machinists; Lodge No. 721,2 or by neither. There- after, the Petitioner filed an answer to the notice to show cause stat- ing that it desired that such an election be held and that its name be placed on the ballot. The Intervenor also filed an answer stating 191 NLRB 1145 The present proceeding was at that time consolidated with Inggett sf Myers Tobacco Company, Case No. 34-RC-183. 2 The Intervenor is the current contractual representative of a group of mechanical maintenance employees. 94 NLRB No. 22. 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that it had no legal objection to the direction of such an election and ,desired that its name be placed on the ballot. No cause having been shown why an election should not be directed, :and because we believe that these employees may appropriately be included in either the Petitioner's or the Intervenor's unit, we shall, in accord with Board precedent,' direct an election among employees in the following voting group : All employees engaged in the main- tenance and operation of air-conditioning equipment in the Em- ployer's Durham, North Carolina, plant, excluding all other employees and all supervisors. If a majority of the employees in the voting group cast their bal- lots for either the Petitioner or the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be part of the existing bargaining unit represented by the labor organization of their choice, and the labor organization selected may bargain for the employees in the voting group as part of the existing unit. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order issued on October 20, 1950, ,dismissing the petition herein be, and it hereby is, vacated and set .aside. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above Amended Decision, Order, and Direction of Election. 3 Cf. Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 92 NLRB 583. Although Board Member Murdock dissented from the majority 's decision in that case, he considers himself bound by that decision. MULLINS LUMBER COMPANY AND SCIIOOLFIELD INDUSTRIES , DIVISION OF MULLINS LUMBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD of PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS , A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 10-PC-1199. April !?6, 19151 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John S. Patton, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board` 94 NLRB No. 8.