Union Carbide and Carbon Corp.

640 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and also because of the practice in the industry of bargaining on a system-wide basis. We perceive no cogent reason in this case for departing from established policy.4 Accordingly, we' find that the unit composed of the employees in the Yakima central steam heat plant requested herein is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the petition .5 Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration,of the above De- cision and Order. ' See West Texas Utilities Company , Inc, 88 NLRB 192, and cases cited thei ein. ^6-In view of'our finding, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the contract -bar issue. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS DIVISION, UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORA- TION and UNITED GAS, CORE, AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-476. May 17,1951 Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, executed February 5, 1951, an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 15, 1951, tinder the direction and supervision of the Re- gional Director for the Ninth Region, among certain employees of the Employer. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 711 eligib]e voters, 329 voted for the Petitioner, 315 against, and 4 void ballots were cast. On February 21, 1951, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election. On March 16, 1951, the Regional Director, after an investigation, made a report and recommendation` on the Employer's objections, to which the Employer filed exceptions March 28, 1951. The objections and exceptions all relate to a single incident which the Employer alleges constitutes electioneering. The Regional Di- rector's report finds the facts with regard to this incident to be as follows : The first voting period had been set for 7-7: 30 a. m. for the convenience of the employees on the third or night shift. Shortly before the polls opened, representatives of the Petitioner began dis- tributing campaign handbills to employees entering the north gate, which is approximately 250 feet from the entrance to the polling place in the plant cafeteria. No specific "no electioneering area" had been 94 NLRB No. 91. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS DIVISION 641 designated. Distribution continued until 7:30 a. m. The distribu- tors at no time were more than a step inside the entrance gate, and no Board agent directed or requested them to cease their activities. As the distribution occurred at a substantial distance from the en- trance to the polls, the Regional Director found that it did not con- stitute electioneering near the pools and accordingly recommended that the Board find the Employer's objection to be without merit. In its exceptions, the Employer asserts that during the period from 7 to 7: 30 a. in. hundreds of employees entered the north gate on their way to work on the first shift, which begins at 7: 30 a. in. It alleges that at this same time most of the third shift employees were on their way to'vote, and, for a distance of about 60 feet in their route from the locker rooms to the polls, passed within sight and ""talking dis- tance" of the distributors at the gate; and that for the remaining ap- proximately 200 feet to the polling place, they mingled with the in- coming stream of first shift employees, most of whom were carrying handbills.' Upon consideration of all the circumstances, the Board affirms the recommendation of the Regional Director. There had been no spe- cific "no electioneering" area designated here. We do not believe that the distribution of handbills at the gate, approximately 250 feet from the polling place, constituted electioneering near the polls such as to justify setting aside the election in this proceeding.2 We find that the Employer's objections are without merit, and they are hereby overruled. As the tally shows that a majority of the valid votes have been cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. Certification of Representatives IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Work- ers of America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of Linde Air Products Division, Union Carbide and 1 The employer's exceptions also assert that the union representatives while distributing handbills, were 2 or 3 feet within the Employer's property line, rather than only a "step" inside the gate as found by the Regional Director; and that a Board agent assured an employee's representative that he would put an immediate stop to the handing out of campaign material, and attempted to do so without success. We find it unnecessary to resolve these issues of fact, as we deem them immaterial to the decision herein 2 See J. I. Case Company, 85 NLRB 576, where we held that union representatives, who complied with a request to leave the immediate vicinity of the polling place but there- after stationed themselves at the plant entrance 110 feet distant, where they distributed campaign leaflets to employees on their way to vote, were not electioneering "near the polling place" so as to void the election Detroit Creamery Company, 60 NLRB 178, and Continental Can Company, 80 NLRB 785, are distinguishable In the former case, a union representative, after circulating throughout the working area and talking with the employees, stationed himself on a stairway in the plant wheie all employees had to pass him on their way to vote In the latter case it was found that the distribution objected to had taken place within a restricted area 9553841-52-vol 94-42 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carbon Corporation, in the unit found to be appropriate as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining and that, pur- suant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MEMBERS MURDOCK and STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. DANBURY & BETHEL GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT Co. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHFiRIIOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cabe No. 2-RC-331. May 17, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before D. J. Sullivan, hear- ing 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 has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 'Employer urges in its brief that evidence which was not introduced at the hearing be considered at this time. Employer further asks, if the Board will not comply with this request, that it may have an opportunity to present evidence at a supplementary hearing. The evidence offered for consideration is to the effect that the Petitioner in this proceeding entered into a contract in July 1950 with a New York utility ; that the Petitioner in this proceeding and six of its locals entered into a contract with a Con- necticut utility ; and that in both of these contracts meter readers were included in a unit with operating employees. Assuming, arguendo, that this evidence is sufficient to establish that Petitioner has contracts in which meter readers are included in a unit with operating employees , never- theless we shall , for reasons hereinafter stated, exclude meter readers from the unit found appropriate herein . Accordingly, as the Employer' s request for a supplementary hearing would serve no useful purpose , the request is hereby denied. 94 NLRB No. 100.