B. P. Alaska, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1978

234 N.L.R.B. 125 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

B P ALASKA, INC.
B P Alaska, Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union 1547, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner, and North Slope Employees Associa-
tion, Petitioner. Cases 19-RC-8199 and 19-RC-
8207
January 6, 1978
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND MURPHY
On July 20, 1977, the Board issued its Decision on
Review in this proceeding,' wherein the Board found
that the following employees of the Employer might
constitute units appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
(A) All powerhouse employees including all
maintenance operators, linemen, transmission
and distribution technicians, substation techni-
cians, and general helpers working in or out of
Employer's Central Power Station, and Employed
by Employer at its North Slope, Prudhoe Bay,
Alaska, facility; excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, managerial em-
ployees, confidential employees, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
(B) All other employees employed by Employer
at its North Slope, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, facility;
excluding all office clerical employees, profession-
al employees, managerial employees, confidential
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Board remanded the cases to the Regional Di-
rector for Region 19 for the purpose of conducting
elections in the above groups in accordance with the
procedures described in the Board's Decision.
On August 17, 1977, the Board by telegraphic order
granted in part a Motion for Reconsideration filed
by International Union of Operating Engineers, Lo-
cal Union 302 (hereinafter IUOE or Local 302), an
intervenor in the original proceeding, to the extent
that it permitted Local 302 as well as the IBEW to
elect whether it would appear on the ballot for the
i 230 NLRB 986.
2 The Board's telegraphic order read in pertinent part:
We hereby amend our Direction of Election to so provide and further
order that the Regional Director of Region 19 follow the balloting
procedure outlined in pages 6-8 of our Decision with respect to the
IUOE, Local 302 as well as the IBEW, where appropnate, except as
provided below.
central power station (CPS) employees described in
voting group A, or for the overall unit.2 Both Local
302 and the IBEW elected to appear on the ballot
seeking a separate CPS unit, rather than seeking the
employees in an overall unit.
Subsequently, on August 28 and 29, and September
I and 2, the Regional Director for Region 19 con-
ducted secret-ballot elections in the above groups in
accordance with the Board's Decision. The tally of
ballots for voting group B showed that, of approxi-
mately 229 eligible voters, 26 cast ballots for North
Slope Employees Association and 165 ballots were
cast for no union. There were no void ballots and no
challenged ballots. The tally of ballots for voting
group A showed that of approximately 24 eligible
voters, 9 cast ballots for IUOE Local 302, 7 for
IBEW Local 1547, 0 for NSEA, and 8 for no union;
there was 1 challenged ballot. Thereafter, the Re-
gional Director scheduled a runoff election in unit A,
between IUOE Local 302 and IBEW Local 1547, to
be held on September 20 and 27.
On September 8, 1977, the Employer filed a Mo-
tion for Reconsideration, specifically requesting that
the Board "amend its order of August 17 to permit
the two choices receiving the highest vote total (but
less than a majority) in voting Group A to appear on
the ballot in the runoff election," consistent with its
interpretation of the applicability of the last sentence
of Section 9(c)(3) of the Act. By telegraphic Order
dated September 20, 1977, the Board postponed the
scheduled runoff election pending consideration of
the motion. On September 29, the IBEW submitted a
memorandum in opposition to the Employer's mo-
tion. The IBEW urged that "under the Board's order,
if a majority of the employees voting [sic] their bal-
lots for either IBEW or IUOE, but neither of the two
received a majority individually, they would be
deemed to have voted in favor of collective bargain-
ing, and for a separate unit. The only issue to be
decided in a runoff election thus would be whether
IBEW or IUOE would be the collective-bargaining
representative for the unit. IBEW and the other par-
ties, as well as the employees participated in the elec-
tion with the understanding that it would be con-
ducted in the manner described above."
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
If the IUOE, Local 302 and the IBEW both elect to appear on the
ballot for voting group A, and a majority of the ballots cast in that
group indicates the employees' preference for separate representation,
but neither Union receives a majority of the votes cast, then the Re-
gional Director shall hold a run-off election in voting group A. In all
other cases, the Regional Director shall pool the ballots of voting group
A with those of voting group B as directed in our Decision. page 7,
footnote 7.
234 NLRB No. 32
125
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board, having duly considered the issues and
circumstances herein and the positions of the parties,
has decided to deny the Employer's Motion for Re-
consideration to the extent that it would limit the
ballot choices to the IUOE and no union.
The elections held on August 28 and 29 and Sep-
tember I and 2 have determined the question con-
cerning representation with respect to voting group
B. Thus, the tally showed 165 votes against and 26
votes for the North Slope Employees Association, a
definitive election result that could not be affected by
the approximately 24 eligible voters in voting group
A. No objections were filed to the elections.
Under the procedure followed, the vote in the elec-
tion in the powerhouse group has thus far established
only that the employees in that group have expressed
a desire to constitute a separate unit inasmuch as
two-thirds of the eligible voters have cast ballots for
the Unions seeking only the powerhouse employees
as a separate unit. We note also that none of the
employees voted for NSEA which was on the group
A ballot, as a choice for representation in the overall
unit. Although the balloting has established the ap-
propriateness of the separate powerhouse unit, it has
not as yet resolved the question concerning represen-
tation among the employees in that unit. Thus, al-
though a plurality of the ballots was cast for the two
Unions seeking to represent the CPS employees sepa-
rately, neither of the Unions seeking that separate
unit has received a majority.3 Such result was, of
course, possible where, as here, voters were faced
with answering two questions by a single vote: i.e.,
whether they desired to be considered a separate
unit, and, if so, which Union, if any, they desired to
3 The one challenged ballot in the initial election could not affect the
issue of separate representation, nor could it have constituted a majonty for
any of the choices.
have represent them. Although a definitive majority
for one of the two unions seeking to represent the
powerhouse group might have resulted from that bal-
loting, it did not.
As the question concerning representation-as op-
posed to the question concerning the appropriate
unit-has not been decided, we deem our investiga-
tion of the question concerning representation in-
complete, and we shall therefore direct another elec-
tion among the employees in the powerhouse unit in
order to further our investigation. That election will
in no sense be a runoff election within the meaning
of Section 9(c)(3), as contended by the Employer.4
The ballots cast for the IBEW are part and parcel of
the vote for separate representation that has here
established the powerhouse as a separate unit, and
we shall therefore direct that its name, along with
that of the IUOE and with a no-union choice, be
placed on the ballot for a second election. Inasmuch
as the NSEA did not seek to represent the separate
unit, its retention on the ballot is now unwarranted.
Thus, the choices on the ballot shall be the IUOE,
the IBEW, and "no union."
Accordingly, the Employer's Motion for Reconsid-
eration is granted only to the extent consistent here-
with.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that, as part of his investiga-
tion to ascertain the selection of a collective-bargain-
ing representative in voting group A, the Regional
Director for Region 19, consistent with this Supple-
mental Decision, and Direction, shall schedule a fur-
ther election in that group, which we hereby find to
be an appropriate unit.
4See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 125 NLRB 556 (1959). Under the circum-
stances here, as in the Anheuser-Busch case, Sec. 9(c)3) of the Act is not at
this time applicable.
126