Lakeview Mining Co.

440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cases and thereafter. The import of the majority's decision, how- ever, is to perpetuate a discarded rule in certain cases which, it so happens, were decided prior to the issuance of the new contract-bar rules. The Petitioner is thus placed in a worse position than it would have occupied had it not filed the previous petition which was dismissed.' Indeed, its instant petition is treated by the majority as a request for reconsideration of the earlier decision. With this, we cannot agree. One of the principal objectives of the contract- bar policy is to provide employees with the opportunity to select representatives at reasonable and predictable intervals. We have now determined that this "reasonable and predictable" period should be no longer than 2 years. Yet the employees here involved will be denied the opportunity of selection for an extra year. Since neither the Act nor the Board's rules place any limit on the number of petitions that may be filed concerning the representation of a unit of employees,' we would entertain the instant petition in the light of the Board's revised contract-bar rules. As the contract was filed in the third year of the contract's duration, we would direct an election immediately .9 7 See, e.g., East Tennessee Packing Company, 122 NLRB 204 ; The Steck Company, 122 NLRB 12. In both these cases, the revised contract-bar rules were applied to petitions which were pending at the time that the Board announced its new contract -bar rules. 8 Thalheimer Brothers, Incorporated, 98 NLRB 726 , footnote 1. The only restriction appears in Section 9 ( c)(3) of the Act, which limits the number of elections which may be held within a 12-month period. 9 Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, supra. Lakeview Mining Company and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 36-RC-1375. March 26,1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION The Board 1 issued a Decision and Direction of Election herein on November 28, 1958,2 in a unit of the Employer's mine employees. Contrary to a stipulation of the parties, the Board excluded mill em- ployees from the unit because the Employer had no mill employees at the time of the hearing. Thereafter, the Employer filed a motion to amend, concurred in by the Intervenor and opposed by the Peti- tioner, requesting inclusion of mill employees in the unit as the mill had commenced operations on November 29. By telegraphic order, dated December 12, 1958, the Board granted the Employer's motion. IPursuant 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 Fanning]. 2 Unpublished. 123 NLRB No. 57. BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY 441 However, through inadvertence, the Board did not specifically amend the Direction of Election to provide a new eligibility date. As a consequence, the eligibility date used by the Regional Director in conducting the election on December 22 and 23, 1958, was the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the original Decision. Consistent therewith, the ballots of all mill employees who voted in the. election were- challenged. However, it cannot be ascertaind how many other mill employees failed to appear at the polls because the election notices erroneously set forth an eligibility period antedating their employment at the mill. In the circumstances, and as the votes of mill employees are sufficient to affect the election results, we be- lieve it will best effectuate the policies of the Act to set the election aside and direct a new election herein.3 [The Board set aside the election held on December 22 and 23, 1958.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 31n, view of this disposition, we need not consider the effect of the challenged ballots upon the election. Brooklyn Union Gas Company and Local 101, Utility Division, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 2-RC-9689 and 2-RC-9727. March 27, 1959 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 Winifred D. Morio, hearing 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. i On February 26, 1959, the IBEW filed a motion with the Board to reopen the hearing for the purpose of taking evidence with •respect to 'a proposed consolidation of Brooklyn Union Gas Company and Brooklyn Borough Gas Company. The Employer and Petitioner filed motions in opposition . The Utility workers took no position on the motion. As the consolidation cannot be consummated until approved by the Public Service Commission of New York State and by the stockholders of the two companies involved , and as it is not possible to determine when such approval will, if ever , be given, the actual consolidation and its effect upon the Employer 's operations are at this time speculative and remote. Moreover, the IBEW has failed to show with reasonable specificity just what evidence it intends to introduce at a reopened hearing and how such evidence might bear upon the issues now before the Board. Under these circumstances we find that no proper purpose would be served in reopening the hearing and the motion is, therefore, denied. 123 NLRB No. 68.