Anchor Aluminum Corp.

322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD date, a showing of interest dated prior to the Regional Director's approval of the consent-election agreement. The instant union was never given notice of this proceeding. It inquired by letter, received by the Chicago Regional Office on April 9, about the pending election, expressing a desire to participate. By telephone call later that day, it explained to the Regional Director that its authorization cards were in Terre Haute, Indiana. The Regional Director thereupon advised the union to have the cards in the Regional Office the next day, April 10. In accordance with these -instructions, the Union presented a card, dated prior to the approval of the consent-election agreement, at 3 p.m. on April 10. Clearly, therefore, the presentation was timely, as customarily required by the Board, and as represented by the Regional Director himself. Nor was the showing of interest insufficient. The Board does not require a "substantial" showing of interest for participation in an election by an intervenor.' Indeed, the Board customarily deems a single authorization card to be sufficient for this purpose. Accordingly, as the union's interest showing was sufficient and timely, its name should have been placed on the ballot. I would there- fore set the election aside and direct a second election with both unions on the ballot. 1 See, e.g., Beneke Corporation, 109 NLRB 1191; Hughes Gun. Company, 97 NLRB 913; Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368. Anchor Aluminum Corp. and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-10046. August 4, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing of- ficer 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 [Mem- bers Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 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(e) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 1 The Employer and the Intervenor , United Brotherhood of Aluminum & Metal Work- ers of North America, NOITU, assert as a bar to this petition their contract executed 124 NLRB No. 40. M. J. COUNIHAN, BUSINESS AGENT, LOCAL 508 323 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act : I All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Crugers, New York, plant, excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] on August 1, 1958, and expiring on December 31, 1959, which contains a union-security clause. The record shows that the Intervenor was not in compliance with Section 9(f), (g), and ( h) of the Act at the time the contract was executed or during the preceding 12 months, Compliance was first achieved on January 30, 1959, before the filing of the instant petition in May. Tinder the rules set forth in Keystone Coat, Apron t Towel Supply Company, 121 NLRB 880, the Board will recognize the validity of a union- security contract for contract -bar purposes , notwithstanding belated compliance prior to the filing of the petition , only if "Initial steps to achieve such compliance were taken [by the contracting union] before the execution or renewal of the contract." The in- stant record contains no evidence concerning any Initial steps which may have been taken by the Intervenor. However , the Employer makes an offer of proof in its brief that prior to the execution of the contract, the Intervenor completed all necessary compli- ance forms and that the delay in submitting them until January 1959 was due to an in- advertent error on the part of the Intervenor's clerical staff. We reject the offer of proof as untimely . Moreover , even if accepted , it falls short of satisfying the Initial-steps requirement of the rule , which contemplates at the very least a filing of some pertinent document with the Regional Office. Nor do we believe that mere inadvertence warrants a departure from the established rule. Accordingly, for these reasons we hold the con- tract not to be a bar, without passing on the other issues raised in connection with the Intervenor's claim. 2 The parties stipulated as to the appropriateness of the unit. M. J. Counihan, Business Agent, Local 508, International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Peacock Con- struction Company Cecil Pittman, Business Agent, Local Union No. 188, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Peacock Construction Company Local Union No. 188, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Peacock Construc- tion Company Local 508, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Peacock Construction Company. Cases Nos. 10-CD-111, 10-CD-115, 10-OD-133, and 10-CD-134. August 3, 1959 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES This proceeding arises under Section 10(k) of the Act, which pro- vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an 124 NLRB No. 43.