The Zia Co.

312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD date of this Direction, open and count the 655 ballots described in Appendixes A, F, M, and section 6 of the Acting Regional Director's report, and the ballots of LaDagona and Noble, and thereafter pre- pare and cause to be served upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, including the count of said challenged ballots. The Board expressly reserves herein the disposition with respect to all other recommendations of the Acting Regional Director as con- tained in his report on challenges , and all exceptions filed by the parties not specifically treated herein, until such time as the Regional Director serves his revised tally of the ballots. MEMBERS MURDOCK and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Order Directing Regional Director To Open and Count Challenged Ballots. THE ZIA COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL TJNION No. 492, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 33-RC-464. July 2,1954 Order Amending Decision and Direction of Election On May 27, 1954, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election 1 in the above-entitled matter, wherein it directed a self- determination election in a voting group confined solely to certain employees previously unrepresented by the Petitioner to determine whether they desire to become part of a recognized unit presently rep- resented by the Petitioner.2 On June 11, 1954, the Petitioner filed with the Board its motion for reconsideration of and clarification of decision and direction of election, in which it clarified its position by stating that it desires certification in the Board overall unit. On June 28, 1954, the Employer filed with the Board a reply to the Petitioner's motion, requesting, in effect, that the Board take no action which would rescind its earlier direction of a self-determination election for the previously unrepresented employees.3 As the overall certification requested by the Petitioner is possible only in the event the employees 1108 NLRB 1134. 2 Although the Petitioner had sought an election and certification in a broad unit com- prised of employees in the historical unit plus the above-noted previously unrepresented employees , the Board decided that even though the two groups may appropriately be grouped together in a single overall unit , sound policy dictates that a self-determination election should be granted the previously unrepresented employees . Accordingly, as the Peti- tioner's position was not clear from the record as to whether it still desired an election in the historical unit, the Decision and Direction of Election directed an election among the previously unrepresented employees only. 9 As noted hereinafter, this Order does not disturb the original direction of a self-deter- mination election, but merely provides for an additional separate election in the recog- nized unit. 109 NLRB No. 50. THE ZIA COMPANY 313 in both groups are extended the opportunity to select the Petitioner as their representative, the original Decision and Direction is hereby amended as noted hereinafter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration of and Clarification of Decision and Direction of Election, be, and it hereby is, granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision and Direction of Election be corrected as follows : (1) By striking the title "Decision and Direction of Election" and substituting "Decision and Direction of Elections." (2) By striking the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 5 and substituting the following : In view thereof, including the fact that the Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of interest among the employees sought to be added to its presently recognized unit, for which it also ap- parently desires an election for purposes of certification,hla we shall direct separate elections in the following groups of em- ployees at the Employer's Los Alamos, New Mexico, operations: ua See General Box Company, 82 NLRB 678 at 678-683. (3) By striking that part of the Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the majority opinion which follows the second paragraph on page 5 and substituting the following : A. All employees who are primarily employed for the purpose of driving trucks, busses and taxis, including the low bed truck- driver,l'b motor fuel pump tenders, tire repairmen , service sta- tion attendants, wash rack men, and warehouse employees presently represented by the Petitioner, but excluding winch truckdrivers, partsmen in the transportation division, outside fork lift operators, office clerical employees, all employees de- scribed in voting group B below, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act."- B. All employees who are primarily employed in warehouses and contiguous yards for the purpose of receiving, shipping, storing, issuing, moving, and delivering supplies and materials, but excluding partsmen in the transportation division, office ub At the hearing, the International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 953, AFL, Intervenor herein , opposed the inclusion of a "low bed" truckdriver in the existing unit. The record discloses that this employee, who is engaged 100 percent of the time in transporting, loading and unloading by means of a winch and hoist large power equipment and bulldozer machinery which is operated by members of the Intervenor, has in the past maintained membership in both Unions . However, as he is referred to in the Petitioner's contract with the Employer, and it appears that he is the sole driver of the "low bed" truck whose primary function is the hauling of such equipment to and from job sites, we find that the "low bed" truckdriver may be included in this voting group. ne This group is intended to include all employees for whom the Petitioner is presently recognized , and no others. 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clerical employees, warehouse employees presently represented by the Petitioner, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group B vote against the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain outside the presently recognized unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of elec- tion to that effect. If a majority of the employees in voting group A only, cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be deemed to have indicated their desire to be represented by the Petitioner and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a cer- tification of representatives to the Petitioner as to this unit, which we find to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in voting group B vote for the Petitioner, that group will appropriately be included in the presently recognized unit and their votes shall be pooled with those in voting group A.11a If a majority of em- ployees in the pooled group select the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor organization for such unit, which under the cir- cumstances we find to be appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining. 71d In the event the votes are pooled, they shall be accorded their face value. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision and Direction of Elections, as printed, shall appear as hereby amended. MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEESON took no part in the consideration of the above Order Amending Decision and Direction of Election. MONROE CALCULATING MACHINE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETI- TIONER.1 Case No. 2-RC-6654. July 22,195.¢ Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held; Louis A. Schneider, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 1 The Petitioner's name appears herein as amended at the hearing. At the hearing, Local No. 431, United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE), hereinafter called Local 431, was permitted to intervene on a contract interest, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., was permitted to intervene on the b asis of a card showing. 2 Intervenor, Local 431, offered to prove, inter alia, that the Petitioner's Local 432 had forcibly taken over the office and records of Local 431 ; that Local 432 permits only its own adherents to enter the office, and thus prevents members and officers of Local 431 from 109 NLRB No. 53.