Mission Appliance Corp.

MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION 361 of inappropriate unit . These employees are classified by the Employer as three maintenance mechanics and described by their supervisor as welder, licensed electrician , and electri- cian-leadman ; and a stationery engineer , described as licensed boiler operator . All work out of a separate building which is equipped with maintenance tools and repair supplies. While their primary duty is general repair and maintenance, they average 25 percent or more of their time in production work, and substitute for absent guard-janitors . None has served an apprenticeship . We find that this maintenance group does not constitute a homogeneous craft group , and in view of the bar- gaining history may not appropriately be severed from the broader unit .' We shall therefore dismiss the petition in Case No. 21-RC-2948. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 21-RD-175 and 21-RC-2948 be, and they hereby are, dis- missed. s The Nestle Company, Inc ., 92 NLRB 1250. MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L., Petitioner . Case No . 21-RC-2788. April 24, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION OF RUNOFF ELECTION On February 24, 1953, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election by the Board,' as amended on February 12, 1953,2 an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty -first Region among the employees in the stipulated unit at the Employer's plant in Whittier, Cali- fornia . At the close of the election , a tally of ballots was issued and duly, served upon the parties concerned . The tally revealed that, of approximately 250 eligible voters, 224 cast ballots, of which 66 ballots were for the Petitioner , 88 ballots were for the Intervenor, and 70 ballots were against the participating labor organizations . There were no challenged and no void ballots . On March 2 , 1953, the Petitioner timely filed with the Re- gional Director a letter in which it stated: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102.61 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , the Petitioner in the above-entitled matter, the International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, A.F . of L., hereby files its Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of Election. i 21-RC-2788, dated December 23, 1952, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 2 The Board amended its Decision on this date to permit the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Intervenor, to intervene in this proceeding and appear on the ballot. 104 NLRB No. 63. 3 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD These Objections are based upon conduct of the Employer which interfered with and intimidated the employees inthe election held and which conduct affected the results of the election. Evidence supporting these Objections will be furnished immediately. A copy of this letter was immediately served on the Employer and the Intervenor by regular mail. On March 9, 1953, after the 5-day period allowed by Section 102.61 of the Rules and Regulations for filing objections to an election,e the Petitioner filed with the Regional Director a bill of particulars which set forth its reasons for objecting to the election, and served copies thereof upon the Employer and the Intervenor. On March 13, 1953, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections in which he found, relying on National Carbon Company, Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation,4 that the Petitioner's ob- jections were not properly before him for consideration on the merits because its letter of March 2, 1953, did not contain a sufficient statement of the reasons for its objections as re- quired by Section 102.61 of the Rules and Regulations. He therefore recommended that the objections be overruled and that a runoff election be held. The Petitioner has filed timely exceptions to the report. The Boards has reviewed the objections, the Regional Di- rector's report and the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and recom- mendations. Like the Regional Director, we find that our de- cision in National Carbon Company is controlling here.6 Ac- cordingly, the Petitioner's objections are hereby overruled. Inasmuch as the results of the election are inconclusive, we shall, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, direct that a runoff election be conducted to determine whether or not the employees in question desire to be repre- sented by the Intervenor for the purposes of collective bar- gaining. [Text of Direction of Runoff Election omitted from publi- cation. ] 6 The pertinent part of this section provides: "Within 5 days after the tally of ballots has been furnished, any party may file with the regional director four copies of objections to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election, which shall contain a short statement of the reasons therefor. Such filing must be timely whether or not the chal- lenged ballots are sufficient in number to effect the results of the election. Copies of such objections shall immediately be served upon each of the other parties by the party filing them, and proof of service shall be made." 4 99 NLRB 774. 5 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to the same three -member panel [Members Houston, Styles , and Peterson]. 6 Although Members Houston and Styles dissented in the National Carbon Company case, they deem themselves bound by the majority decision therein.