Potomac Electric Power Co.

POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 553 raise substantial or material issues with respect to the election or con- duct affecting the results of the election and recommended that they be overruled. The Regional Director further found that the status of categories which were challenged could best be determined after a hearing, but that the certification should not be delayed inasmuch as the challenges did not affect the results of the election. We shall accept the Regional Director's recommendation, and issue a certification. The Employer did not file formal exceptions to the Regional Direc- tor's report, but on December 1, 1954, the Employer filed a motion for further hearing where it stated that it did not agree with the Regional Director's report with respect to its objections Nos. 1 and 2. It chal- lenged the procedure of holding an election in an "incomplete bargain- ing unit" and certifying such a unit prior to a determination of al- leged supervisory categories. We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the election was improper, and, inasmuch as the Petitioner has received a majority of the votes cast in the election and the challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election, we shall issue a certification to the Peti- tioner. However, we shall grant the Employer's motion to order a further hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence with respect to the al- leged supervisory status of the board machine men and the board cas- cade tenders for the purpose of determining whether those classifica- tions should be included in the bargaining unit heretofore found ap- propriate. Both classifications were permitted to vote subject to chal- lenge in our recent Direction of Election. [The Board remanded the case to the Regional Director for the pur- pose of receiving evidence of the duties and responsibilities of the board machine men and the board cascade tenders.] [The Board certified United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees of United States Gypsum Company at Fort Dodge, Iowa, in the unit found by the Board to be appropriate.] POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Ci a8e No. 5-RC-1473. February 9,1955 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 Henry L. Segal, hearing 111 NLRB No. 92. ,554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Employer asserted that the Petitioner had failed to make a proper prima facie showing of interest in this proceeding, because of the nature of the authorization cards submitted in support of its petition, and because of the manner in which such cards were allegedly secured. The Employer further moved to dismiss the peti- tion on such grounds, and, in support of its motion, sought to intro- duce into the record certain documentary and physical evidence, and made various offers of proof, all of which the hearing officer rejected. As the Board and the courts have consistently held, showing of inter- est is a matter for administrative determination, and is not litigable by the parties.' The hearing officer's rulings, excluding the proffered evidence and rejecting the Employer's offers of proof, were therefore proper. The Board has, however, considered the foregoing proffered evi- dence and offers of proof, for the purpose of determining whether it should be administratively satisfied, without further investigation, that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest. As we are of the opinion, for the reasons stated hereinafter, that the Em- ployer's allegations would not support an administrative determina- tion that the Petitioner's showing of interest is inadequate, we do not believe that a further administrative investigation is warranted. The Employer alleges that the cards submitted by the Petitioner, in support of its petition, stated that : The undersigned desires the National Labor Relations Board to conduct a Secret Ballot Election so that the International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.) may be certified as the sole bargaining agency of all Potomac Electric Power Company employees. The Employer asserts, and our dissenting colleague would hold, that on their face, the above-quoted cards fail to satisfy the Board's require- ments, as set forth in Section 101.16 and 101.17 of the Board's State- ments of Procedure, that a petition must be supported by evidence that at least 30 percent of the employees have designated the Peti- tioner to act as their representative. We do not agree. On their face, the above-quoted cards express the desire of the signatories for an election so that the Petitioner "may be certified as the sole bargaining agency" of the Employer's employees. A labor organization which has been certified by the Board is, by operation of law, the sole representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.2 Unless there is magic in the use of particular words-a sugges- IN L R B v J. I Case Company, 201 F 2d 597 (C. A. 9) ; The Colorado Milling and Elevator Company, 108 NLRB 1014. 2 Section 9 (a), National Labor Relations Act, as amended. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 555 tion which we emphatically reject-the above-quoted cards, by ex- pressing a desire that the Petitioner be certified, necessarily encom- pass within that expression a desire that the Petitioner act as their representative. Such cards, accordingly, satisfy the requirement of the Board's Statements of Procedure. The Employer further asserts, and our dissenting colleague would also hold, that the unreliability of the above-quoted cards as evidence of representation is further established by the manner in which the em- ployees were allegedly induced to execute and return such cards to the Petitioner. As alleged by the Employer, the Petitioner, as part of its campaign to secure the authorization cards necessary to support its petition, offered a key case to each employee who would execute and return such a card, and distributed literature 3 which stated in part that : We, your fellow employees, who are supporting the IBEW campaign to obtain a Labor Board secret ballot election, believe that the majority of Pepco workers support the American way of settling differences at the ballot box. We want your help in obtaining an election wherein Pepco employees may vote for "IBEW," for "EUEU" or for "NO UNION." We believe that Pepco Management and EUEU officers should encourage a secret ballot election to determine the desires of the employees. We further believe that EUEU officers would wel- come an election if EUEU were really the true representative of the workers. What has EUEU to lose by an election if the ma- jority of Pepco employees desire EUEU representation? If EUEU is really the choice of the majority, would it not be good to confirm such a choice by secret ballot? Even if you stand for "EUEU" or for "NO UNION," we be- lieve you owe it to yourself and to your fellow employees to sign one of our Cards so that an election may be held. An election will demonstrate the desires of the majority. There is no other way to know just how the workers feel. EUEU has never been certi- fied by the Labor Board, and EUEU has never been chosen by Pepco workers in a secret ballot election. Sign and mail your Card today. Let's get on with an election and rid ourselves of the Company-sponsored EUEU. Pepco workers should be free members of the great American Trade Union Movement-not captives of a Company-dominated "make believe" ! We find no merit in this position. In this literature, the abbreviation EUEU refers to Electric Utility Employees' Union of Washington , D C, herein called the Intervenor , which was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of a current contractual interest. 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The purpose of requiring a preliminary showing of interest in a rep- resentation proceeding is to enable the Board to determine whether "the conduct of an election serves [a] useful purpose under the statute." 4 The actual fact of representation is, however, determined by the election.5 When, as we have found herein, the Petitioner's evi- dence of representation is sufficient on its face, we believe that further inquiry into the factors which may have motivated the employees to execute such designations would be inconsistent with the limited pur- pose to be served by such evidence; would result in unnecessarily delay- ing the resolution of the question concerning representation ; and would further result in an unwarranted expenditure of Government funds. Moreover, even if such extraneous evidence were to be considered material, we find nothing therein to cast doubt on the reliability of the cards as evidence of representation. The last paragraph of the above- quoted literature clearly reflects that the Petitioner's purpose in seek- ing such authorization cards was to supplant the Intervenor as the employees' representative. There is, therefore, no fundamental incon- sistency between the cards and the accompanying campaign literature. And, as the Petitioner's offer of a key case clearly reflected that the Petitioner's name was imprinted on such case, that offer was in our opinion no more than a legitimate campaign technique.6 Under all the circumstances, we are administratively satisfied that the petition herein is supported by an adequate showing of interest. The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition is, accordingly, denied. 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 organizations involved claim 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) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties agreed at the hearing 8 that the appropriate unit should include all the Employer's employees, excepting only profes- * National Labor Relations Board Statements of Procedure , Sec. 101 17 ; see N L. R. B. v J. I. Case Company, supra, at 598-599 5 N. L R B v. J. I. Case Company, supra, at 600. 6 Cf. The Gruen Watch Company, 108 NLRB 610 7 Including, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties , the records in Cases Nos. 5-RC-1075 and 5-RC-1272 8In Potomac Electric Power Company, 107 NLRB 886, the Board, in denying the Peti- tioner's request for a production and maintenance unit excluding inter alia office clerical, sales, and technical employees, concluded that "only the existing overall unit is appro- priate." In its brief, the Petitioner requests that the Board reconsider such decision and direct self-determination elections in separate voting groups of hourly rated employees and weekly rated employees ; however, if this request is denied , the Petitioner wishes to proceed to an election in the existing unit Neither the Petitioner 's brief nor the record in this case contains any arguments or evidence with respect to the scope of the unit which were not considered by the Board in connection with its decision in the earlier case, supra. It appears moreover , that the Petitioner's proposed separate units are based on method of POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 557 sional employees, confidential employees,9 guards, and supervisors.10 'This is substantially the contract unit currently represented by the Intervenor. The Petitioner contends, however, that certain classifica- tions of employees, presently in the unit, should be excluded because they are either supervisors, confidential employees, or professional 'employees. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that they are neither supervisors, nor confidential, nor professional employees, and -oppose their exclusion. Alleged Supervisors The Petitioner would exclude certain employees presently in the unit, as supervisors, on the ground that they responsibly direct the work of other employees." These employees are paid on the basis of either an hourly wage or a weekly salary; the Employer's acknowl- 'edged supervisors are paid on the basis of an annual salary. The Em- ployer and the Intervenor contend that the authority which these em- ployees possess to direct other employees is merely routine, and does not require the exercise of independent judgment; they assert that such employees are at most leadmen or working foremen such as the Board has consistently held not to be supervisors. The pole crew leadmen A in the overhead lines division and the cable pulling leadmen A in the cable division direct crews of from 8 to 12 employees in work which, insofar as appears in the record, is largely routine. They receive daily work assignments from either a foreman or an assistant general foreman, in the form of drawings, specifications, or verbal instructions; assign duties to the members of the crew and direct the work of the crew, on the basis of such work assignments; select the pioper materials for the job; and inspect the work of the crew to insure that the job is being completed according to specifications. Although it does not appear that any acknowledged supervisors work directly with these crews, we infer, from the fact that a substantial part of the Employer's facilities are located in a metropolitan area, that under most circumstances these leadmen could communicate with their supervisors in the event they encountered problems out of the ordinary routine. Although these leadmen are the highest paid employees in their crews, they are not the highest paid in payment alone, a factor which the Board has consistently held not to be controlling on the matter of unit placement . E. g., Palmer Manufacturing Corporation, 105 NLRB 812, 814 Accordingly, the Petitioner 's requests for reconsideration and the direction of sepa- rate elections are hereby denied. 0 The parties stipulated that all employees in the personnel department , except cafeteria attendants , should be excluded as confidential employees. 10 The parties stipulated that employees in the classifications of power dispatcher and assistant power dispatcher should be excluded as supervisors 11 Except as otherwise specifically set forth hereinafter there is no evidence even sug- gesting that any of these employees possess any of the other statutory indicia of super- visory authority 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their divisions. Under all the circumstances, we do not believe that the record establishes that these leadmen are required to use independ- ent judgment in directing, the work of their crews. We find, accord- ingly, that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall include them in the unit.12 The routine duties and authorities of the conduit leadmen in the- conduit division are substantially the same as those of the leadmeiL discussed supra. However, the work of their crews appears to be somewhat more complex, and these leadmen may be required to make allowances for hazards and obstructions not reflected on the drawings- or specifications. In addition, they act as the Employer's representa- tive on work being performed by outside contractors, to assure com- pliance with specifications and agreements, and their crews may in- clude a substantial number of contract laborers, not employees of the Employer, in addition to the normal complement of from 4 to 10 of the Employer's employees. They are, however, more closely super- vised than the pole crew and cable pulling leadmen, supra, as their duties on each job appear to be specified in substantially greater detail than is true in the case of the pole crew and cable pulling leadmen. They are the highest paid employees in their division, but not the high- est paid of all the Employer's hourly rated employees. Although the question of their status is not free from doubt, we believe that the evidence as to the degree of independent judgment which they exer- cise falls short of that necessary to establish that they possess super- visory authority within the meaning of the Act; accordingly, we shall' include them in the unit.13 In the Employer's building operations division, which employs ap- proximately 80 employees, the only acknowledged supervisors are the superintendent and the assistant superintendent. On the basis of de- tailed assignments, the lead porter, who also works with his crew, directs and makes assignments to a crew of approximately six porters, performing such routine duties as moving furniture and equipment, cleaning rooms, and making minor repairs and replacements. We cannot find on this record that the lead porter exercises supervisory authority in directing his crew, and we shall therefore include him in the unit.14 On the basis of assignments which appear to be less detailed than those of the lead porter, the lead charwomen' direct crews of approximately 25 charwomen and porters in the routine work of cleaning the main office building. This work is performed during the hours between midnight and 8 a. m., and the lead charwomen's duties include seeing that the employees work their scheduled hours 12 Gerber Plastic Company, 108 NLRB 403 ; Appalachian Electric Cooperative, 93 NLRB 1348, 1349 , Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 87 NLRB 257 , 273-275 1 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, supra. 14 Silverwvood's, 92 NLRB 1114 , 1127, footnote 48. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 559 and that the work is properly performed; they perform manual labor with the crew only if necessitated by the absence of one of the crew members. They are paid substantially less than the highest hourly rated employees in the division. Despite this fact, and the routine nature of the work, we are persuaded by the size of the crews, the fact that these crews work during hours when, presumptively, no acknowledged supervisor is on duty, and the high ratio of employees to acknowledged supervisors in the division, that the lead charwomen responsibly direct the work of their crews within the meaning of the Act.'5 We find, therefore, that they are supervisors, and we shall exclude them from the unit. The lead building engineer, also in the building operations division, directs and works with a crew of approximately eight engineers who repair and maintain the heating, air-conditioning, and similar equip- ment in the main office and service buildings. On the basis of general assignments from the superintendent or assistant superintendent, he plans the work of, and assigns duties to, the other engineers. There are engineers on duty at all times, and the lead engineer may be re- quired to work on any shift, including shifts when the acknowledged supervisors would not normally be on duty. The lead engineer's duties also include making inspections of the boilers with the District of Columbia boiler inspector and, on the basis of such inspections and his own periodic inspections of the boilers and other equipment, assigning the necessary repair work to the other engineers and seeing that such work is properly performed. He is the highest paid em- ployee in his division, but not the highest paid of all the Employer's hourly rated employees. On the basis of these facts, we are satisfied that the lead building engineer exercises independent judgment in responsibly directing the work of the other engineers. We find, ac- cordingly, that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude him from the unit.16 Under the supervision Of an administrative clerk, an assistant ad- ministrative clerk, or other acknowledged supervisor of equivalent rank, the division clerks A in the distribution department office, the engineering order clerk and job record clerk in the distribution engi- neering division, the demand chart clerk A, meter statistics clerk, me- ter order clerk, and test control clerk in the meter department, the work dispatching clerk in the survey department, the delinquent ac- counts clerk A in the credit department, the key punch 'operator A and lead tabulating machine operator in the general accounting depart- ment, the mail section clerk and lead coupon posting clerk in the cus- tomer accounts division, the addressograph clerk, billing room clerk, u Kennecott Copper Corporation, 99 NLRB 748, 752; Wayside Press, Incorporated, 103 NLRB 11, 12, footnote 3. 16 United States Gypsum Company, 105 NLRB 931, 940. 560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and reports clerk in the customer billing division, the customer loca- tion clerk and customer history clerk in the customer service division,, and the lead addressograph operator in the treasurer's office, direct. and assign work to groups of from 2 to 20 lower rated employees en- gaged in routine office clerical duties. In addition, these employees. have their own clerical duties to perform. The work dispatching clerk, lead tabulating machine operator, and reports clerk also assist their supervisors in developing work procedures for their sections; the key punch operator A assists in the general administration of the section; and the lead addressograph operator assists in scheduling in work of the section. Nothing in the record, however, raises an inference that these employees are required, in the performance of these duties, to exercise the degree of independent judgment necessary to establish that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Although the lead tabulating machine operator, reports clerk, and lead addressograph operator assume the duties of their supervisors when the latter are absent, there is nothing in the record to establish that such assumption of supervisory authority is regular and substan- tial, rather than merely occasional and sporadic." Although the du- ties of the billing room clerk include compiling efficiency reports for use, inter atia, in determining the operators' pay grades, the record does not reflect that such duties require the exercise of independent judgment; nor does it reflect the extent to which such reports are re- lied on in determining the operators' pay grades.18 Under all the' circumstances, we find that none of these employees is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore include them in the unit.ie The collection clerk in the credit department, under the supervision of the credit manager or his assistant, directs and assigns work to a group of collectors and lower rated clerks engaged in routine duties related to the collection of delinquent accounts. The duties of the col- lection clerk also require that he make occasional field inspections to verify the work of the collectors, and that he make decisions as to future collection efforts by the collectors with respect to individual de- linquent accounts, on the basis of daily interviews with the collectors. As in the case of the other clerical employees described above, the record does not support the Petitioner's contention that this employee is a supervisor; in view of the limited extent of his authority with re- Phillips Oil Company, 91 NLRB 534 536-537 (Burnell , McInnis). 8 Cf General Telephone Company of California, 106 NLRB 413 , compare United States Gypsum Company, 107 NLRB 122 19 The customer order clerks A in the customer service division, whose duties include diiectmg the work of certain lower rated clerks , are part of the group directed by the cus- tomer location clerk who , as we have found , is not a supervisor ; we find, accordingly, that the customer order clerks A are not supervisors As it appears that the classification of night utility clerk in the customer accounts division is no longer in existence , we shall make no determination as to the unit placement of such classification POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 561 spect to the collection of delinquent accounts, we further find that he is not a managerial employee.20 Accordingly, we shall include the col- lection clerk in the unit. The budget and procedures clerk in the meter department assumes general supervision of the office in the absence of the administrative clerk, but does not otherwise direct the work of other employees. As it does not appear that his assumption of supervisory duties is regular and substantial, we find that he is not a supervisor.21 Although his duties include assisting supervisors in preparing labor budgets for the various sections in the department, it does not appear that he has ac- cess to information concerning anticipated changes which may result from collective-bargaining negotiations. We find, accordingly, that the budget and procedures clerk is not a confidential or managerial enm- ployee,22 and Ave shall include him in the unit. The personnel of the telephone bureau includes a chief clerk and a chief telephone operator, who are acknowledged supervisors, and also a telephone operator A and several telephone operators B. The tele- phone operator A regularly directs the work of the telephone opera- tors B approximately 2 days out of each week, in the absence of the chief operator, and also when the chief operator is ill or on vacation. During such periods, however, her duties are limited to seeing that the established schedules are maintained, and all the other duties of the chief telephone operator are assumed by the chief clerk. On these facts, we find that the telephone operator A is not a supervisor, and we shall include her in the unit.23 The underground cost estimator in the distribution engineering di- vision, the lead cost analysts in the survey department, the general ac- countants A and general accountants B in the general accounting de- partment, and the audit assistants A in the audit department, have various estimating, accounting, and auditing duties, as indicated by their titles. Working under the supervision of acknowledged super- visors, they also direct, assign, and review the work of groups of lower rated employees who are engaged in performing the routine detailed tasks incident to the work of the employees whose status is here in issue. Although it appears that some of these disputed employees may be required to exercise independent judgment in the performance of their own duties, the record does not support the contention that they are required to exercise such judgment in directing the work of the other employees. We find, accordingly, that they are not super- visors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall include them in the unit. 20 Socony-Vacuun Oil Company, Incorporated, 100 NLRB 90, 91-92. -1 Phillips Oil Company, supra. 22 Cities Service Refining Corporation, 94 NLRB 1634, 1636; compare American Litho- fold Corporation, 307 NLRB 1061. -'Alliance Sand Company, 107 NLRB 1273 (Swangei). 562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Alleged Professional Employees For the purpose of promoting the use of electricity, the home econo- mists A, home economists B, and junior home economists, in the home service division, give lectures and demonstrations in the use of elec- trical home appliances to groups of customers ; they also give advice to individual customers on the planning of kitchens and other areas in the home in which electrical appliances are used, and in the use of such equipment. Although a college degree in home economics is required for employment in these positions, the record, in our opinion, fails to establish that the work of these home economists is predomi- nantly intellectual and varied in character, requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance. We therefore find that these home economists are not professional employees, and we shall include them in the unit. Alleged Confidential Employees Under the current contract between the Employer and the Inter- venor, certain clerk-stenographers and clerk-typists, "whose duties in- volve direct connection with, or knowledge of, the formulation of Company policies, future plans or personnel practices affecting em- ployees and negotiations with the Union," are excluded as confidential employees. The Petitioner would also exclude, as confidential em- ployees, clerk-stenographers and clerk-typists who act as secretaries to responsible department or division heads. The record does not reflect whether any additional employees would in fact be excluded under the Petitioner's contention; nor does it reflect the differences, if any, between the duties and responsibilities, with respect to labor rela- tions, of those officials whose secretaries are presently deemed to be confidential employees, and those officials whose secretaries are not regarded as confidential employees. In view of this state of the record we shall, in accordance with the Board's customary practice, exclude as confidential employees all clerk-stenographers and clerk-typists who regularly act as secretaries to officials of the Employer who formu- late or effectuate general labor relations policies, or who in the course of their duties regularly have access to information concerning antici- pated changes which may result from collective-bargaining negotia- tions 24 We find that all other clerk-stenographers and clerk-typists are not confidential employees, and we shall include them in the unit. The duties of the reports and records clerk in the meter reading di- vision, the stores office clerk in the purchasing and stores department, u American Lithofold Corporation, supra ° The inclusion or exclusion of particular individuals whose status is questioned can if necessary be determined upon consideration of challenges or by other supplementary procedures. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 563 the audit clerk-stenographer in the audit department, and the building operations clerk in the building operations division , include prepar- ing, typing, and maintaining various personnel records with respect to employees in their divisions and departments , such as time, attend- ance, and payroll change, records, and reports concerning accidents, illnesses, and vacations . The budget record clerk A in the distribution department office has similar duties with respect to contract employees, not employees of the Employer . These clerks may also type filial re- ports of grievance settlements ; however, such work is not performed until after the affected employees have been advised concerning the settlement . The reports and records clerk also has certain steno- graphic duties, and in addition prepares periodic summaries of the individual meter reader 's production and efficiency ; this latter activity however, involves only in computation and typing. In our opinion, the duties of these clerks are not confidential within the Board's customary definition of the term.26 Accordingly, we shall in- elude them in the unit. The statistical stenographers in the comptroller 's staff departments substitute for secretaries in the offices of the vice president, comp- troller, and assistant comptroller , as necessitated by illness or vaca- tions, and also , as required, relieve the secretaries in the office of the president. Although the record does not establish whether such sec- retaries are confidential employees, within the Board's customary defi- nition of the term , we infer that at least some of them would be. How- ever, the fact that these stenographers occasionally perform the duties of confidential employees does not, standing alone, warrant a finding 1 hat they are also confidential employees.27 Accordingly, we shall in- clude these statistical stenographers in the unit. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that all employees of the Employer located in Washington, D. C., and in the States of Maryland and Virginia, including cafeteria attendants in the personnel department ; pole crew leadmen A in the overhead lines division ; cable pulling leachnen A in the cable division ; conduit leadmen in the conduit division ; the lead porter in the building oper- ations division ; division clerks A and the budget record clerk A in the distribution department office; the engineering order clerk, job record clerk , and underground cost estimator in the distribution engi- neering division ; the budget and procedures clerk, demand chart clerk A, meter statistics clerk, meter order clerk, and test control clerk in the meter department ; the reports and records clerk in the meter read- ing division ; the stores office clerk in the purchasing and stores depart- ment ; the lead cost analysts and work dispatching clerk in the survey wAmerican Ltithofold Corporation, supra. sx American Lithofold Corporation, supra (Boeekstiegel). 344056-55-vo1 111-37 564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department; the collection clerk and delinquent accounts clerk A in the credit department; the general accountants A, general account- ants B, key punch operator A, and lead tabulating machine operator in the general accounting department; the mail section clerk and lead coupon posting clerk in the customer accounts division; the addresso- graph clerk, billing room clerk. and reports clerk in the customer bill- ing division; the audit assistants A and audit clerk-stenographer in the audit department; the home economists A, home economists B, and junior home economists in the home service division; the customer location clerk, customer history clerk, and customer order clerks A in the customer service division; the lead addressograph operator in the treasurer's office; the building operations clerk in the building op- erations division; statistical stenographers in the comptroller's staff departments; the telephone operator A in,the telephone bureau; and clerk-stenographers and clerk-typists (except those who are confiden- tial employees), but excluding employees in the personnel depart- ment (except cafeteria attendants) ; power dispatchers, assistant power dispatchers, lead charwomen, and the lead building engineer in the building operations division; professional employees; confi- dential employees; guards; and supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting : I would dismiss the petition in the instant case, and I would do so f or the following reasons : 1. The so-called showing of interest relied upon by the Petitioner does not satisfy the Board's administrative criteria. The appropriate regulations of the National Labor Relations Board require that the Petitioner must submit "'evidence' that the employees have selected it to represent them." It is interesting to note in this case that the Petitioner submitted two types of "authorization" cards. The first, of which there were 68 in number, and which are of the type universally recognized as bona fide authorization cards, contained the following language : I desire that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.) be certified as my collective bargaining agency with respect to rates of pay, hours of work, and other con- ditions of employment. The second "authorization" card, of which there were 695 in number, contained the following language which can, in my opinion, in no way be accepted as an authorization by the signer that the Petitioner rep- resents him : POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 565 The undersigned desires the National Labor Relations Board to conduct a Secret Ballot Election so that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.) may be certified as the sole bargaining agency of all Potomac Electric Power Company employees. When this latter type card is read in conjunction with the Peti- tioner's literature which accompanied it, it is patently clear that the Petitioner was seeking to obtain an election based not on a designa- tion of representation, but based on the general proposition that periodic elections are desirable for the purpose of clearing the air. This position is demonstrated by the following quotations from the Petitioner's organizing propaganda : Even if you stand for `EUEU' or for `NO UNION,' we believe you owe it to yourself and to your fellow employees to sign one of our Cards so that an election may be held. An election will dem- onstrate the desires of the majority. There is no other way to know just how the workers feel .. . ... We want your help in obtaining an election wherein Pepco employees may vote for `IBEW,' for `EUEU' or for 'NO UNION.' We believe that Pepco Management and EUEU officers should encourage a secret ballot election to determine the desires of the employees. We further believe that EUEU officers would wel- come an election if EUEU were really the true representative of the workers. What has EUEU to lose by an election if the majority of Pepco employees desire EUEU representation? If EUEU is really the choice of the majority, would it not be good to confirm such a choice by a secret ballot? It seems to me that in matters of this type, the Board must act in conformity with its own Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure. The Board, in my opinion, sets a poor example when it solemnly proclaims a set of rules and then equally as solemnly hon- ors and supports their breach. If the administrative rule that a pe- tioner must be designated by at least "30 percent of the employees" means anything, it means that the employees must seek representation by the petitioner. It is for this reason that I cannot join in making an administrative determination which, in my opinion, destroys the very purpose of the rule. 2. The acquisition of the so-called authorization cards, based as it was, at least in part, on the offer of a valuable consideration for each signed card, is so repugnant to the Board's announced election stand- ards that the entire transaction should be treated as being void ab initio. 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In this case the Petitioner in its organizing literature offered to each employee who returned a signed card to its headquarters a combina- tion key case and change purse. The Petitioner in its own literature carried a picture of this item which it described as "a handsome and useful" article. I have no doubt that my colleagues would dismiss this petition if it were established that even a nominal cash payment were made in ex- change for each of these signed cards. I, personally, can see no dif- ference in purpose or result where the card is purchased through an- other type of consideration having a definite cash value. Moreover, I am of the opinion that my colleagues would set aside an election wherein it was established that votes had been obtained in this manner. It seems to me, therefore, that the Board should be no less careful in this matter, since the petition is in reality a part of the Board's election processes and should, like the formal election itself, be kept as free as possible from any suggestion of fraud or misrepresentation. In the entire context of this case, therefore, I would dismiss the pe- tition both as failing to meet the Board's administrative criteria and, secondly, as serving to undermine and make a mockery of the ethical standards which this agency has consistently held must obtain in elec- tion matters. AIRFAN RADIO CORPORATION , LTD., D/B/A KFSD-TV and RICHARD COURON, DIXIE D. LINDSEY AND JAMES J. CAMPBELL AIRFAN RADIO CORPORATION , LTD., D/B/A KFSD-TV and INTERNA- TIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 21-CA-1864 and 21-RC-3404. Febmamy 10,1955 Decision and Order On August 27, 1954, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also recom- mended that the election held on April 13, 1954, in Case No. 21-RC- 3404 be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The 111 NLRB No. 97.