Kennecott Copper Corp.

370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD priate on a departmental basis.16 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1545, 35-RC-1549, and 35-RC-1561. We shall direct elections in the following voting groups : (1) All employees of the toolroom departments, including lead- men, toolmakers A and B, toolroom machine hands 1 and 2, machine shop heat treaters and welders, but excluding inspectors, cutter- sharpeners and cutter-sharpener learners, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All boilerhouse department employees, including the leadman and boilerhouse attendants, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of employees in voting group (1) or (2) vote for the Union seeking to represent them separately, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Union seeking and se- lected by such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the Union seeking to represent them sepa- rately, these employees remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [The Board dismissed the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1545, 35-RC-1549, and 35-RC-1561.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 16 Grand River Chemical Division of Deere & Company, 111 NLRB 770, 773. Cf. American Potash & Chemical Corporation, sui)ra. Kennecott Copper Corporation , Ray Mines Division and Inter- national Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, Ind., Peti- tioner. Case No. 21-RC-534. December 10, 1958 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed on August 5, 1958, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on August 19, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the National Labor Relations Board, among the employees in the stipulated unit. Following the election, the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots, which shows that of approximately 85 eligible voters, 37 votes were cast for the Petitioner, 40 for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 2 for International Chemical 122 NLRB No. 59. KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION 371 Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and none against the participating labor organizations. There were no void or challenged ballots. On August 25, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the conduct of the election. The Regional Director conducted an investi- gation of the objections, and on October 24, 1958, issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that the Petitioner's objec- tions be overruled in their entirety, and that Steelworkers be certi- fied. The Petitioner has filed exceptions only to so much of the Regional Director's report as relates to the voting eligibility of one employee, Gardner Heaps. In the absence of exceptions to the other findings of the Regional Director, we adopt them pro forma. The Board 1 has considered the exceptions and the entire record in the case, and finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner and the Intervenors, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production employees at the Em- ployer's Hayden, Arizona, smelter, including brickmasons and filter plant employees, but excluding office employees, professional and technical employees, maintenance employees including mechanical puncher machinists, oilers, general maintenance repairmen and helpers, power and water department employees, waste heat boiler operators, electrical department employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. Gardner Heaps' name appeared on the eligibility list, although he was in fact ineligible to vote, having been first employed after the eligibility date. He cast an unchallenged ballot at the election. The Petitioner concedes that the Employer's action in listing Heaps among the eligible employees was an honest error, but contends that Steelworkers knew that Heaps was ineligible to vote but kept its knowledge secret. The Petitioner does not allege that the Board agent in charge of the election knew or should have known of Heaps' in- eligibility. The Regional Director's investigation reveals that the unions participating in the election had a full and equal opportunity '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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Panning]. 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to check the eligibility list. Because Heaps' status was ascertainable by the Petitioner, through its members in the plant, we will apply the Board's usual rule that the burden of checking the accuracy of eligibility lists rests with the participating unions, and not with the. Board. The Petitioner's belated objection to Heaps' ballot is in the nature of a postelection challenge and will not be entertained.2 As Steelworkers has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees in the stipulated unit. [The Board certified United Steelworkers of America, AFI^-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the appropriate unit described in paragraph 4, above.] 2 Calcor Corporation, 106 NLRB 539; Earl Fruit Company, 107 NLRB 64. Haberle Engineering and Manufacturing Co. and International Association of Machinists, District 108, AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA-25&5. December 11, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On August 19, 1958, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding, in effect, that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the com- plaint be dismissed. in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun- sel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and briefs in support thereof. 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE - Upon charges filed by the International Association of Machinists, District 108, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National: Labor 122 NLRB No. 64.