Gordon B. Irvine

GORDON B. IRVINE 217 Gordon B. Irvine 1 and International Union of Operating Engi- neers Local No. 9, AFL-CIO; and International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local No. 813, AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioners. Case No. 30-RC-1686. Jay -2, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. His rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are affirmed.' Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Acts 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at the Deremo shaft of the Egnar, Colorado, mine, exclud- ing office and clerical employees, the warehouseman, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.4 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 We affirm the hearing officer's refusal to permit the introduction of evidence concern- ing the manner in which the two Petitioners intended to solve interunion disputes that might arise out of future bargaining negotiations . Such evidence is not relevant as it relates to internal union affairs , not cognizable in this proceeding . The Gemex Corpora- tion, 120 NLRB 46; Mid-South Packers, Inc., 120 NLRB 495. The Joint Petitioners have indicated their willingness to represent the employees involved as joint representa- tives. In this circumstance their names will appear jointly on the ballot; and if suc- cessful in the election they will be certified jointly, and the Employer may then insist that they do , in fact, bargain jointly for such employees as a single unit. Mid-South Packers, Inc., supra ; The Stickless Corporation, 115 NLRB 979, 980. 8 We find , contrary to the contention of the Employer , that the filing of the petition herein constitutes a sufficient demand for recognition . As the Employer declined at the hearing to recognize the Petitioner, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied. Goldblatt Bros., Inc., 118 NLRB 643, at footnote 1. 4 The parties are in substantial agreement that a production and maintenance unit is appropriate , but disagree concerning the placement of the watchman . As the watchman spends a portion of his time in the protection of the Employer's property from vandalism and theft, we find that he is a guard within the meaning of the Act and exclude him from the unit . Acre guild, Inc., 1,19 NLRB 329. Since the parties agree that the shift bosses will be supervisors within the Act's definition when production commences , and the election herein will not be held until that time, we exclude them from the unit. In accord with the agreement of the parties , we likewise exclude the warehouseman from the unit. 124 NLRB No. 25. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The Employer contends that the petition is premature, asserting that its present mine development operation does not have a substan- tial and representative complement. The Employer currently em- ploys 26 "service" employees and 22 "contract miners" in developing its Uranium mine. Within 30 to 90 days after the May 19, 1.959, hearing date, the mine development operation will cease and produc- tion mining will begin. At that time the complement of service employees will remain the same as it is at present; but the Employer anticipates that it will. lose at least half of its contract miners and that about 40 new employees will be hired. The record indicates two new and substantial job classifications will be necessary when produc- tion commences. As it appears that the Employer presently does not have a substantial and representative production force, we shall direct that an election be held as soon as the Regional Director shall deter- mine that a substantial and representative production force has been employed, but not later than August 19, 1959. The election will be subject to submission of an adequate current showing of interest. Goshen Division of The General Time Corporation, 102 NLRB 1.007; see, also Armstrong Cork Company, 115 NLRB 1578. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Jackson Tile Manufacturing Company and United Glass & Ce ramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases Nos- 15-CA-1054 and 15-CA-1190. July 23, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On April 3, 1959, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Intermedi- ate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate' Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the- Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and supporting briefs.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member- panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, exceptions,. and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties. 124 NLRB No. 16.