Share Group, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1997

323 N.L.R.B. 171 (N.L.R.B. 1997)

SHARE GROUP, INC.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

323 NLRB No. 121

Share Group, Incorporated and International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Local 6, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-17232

MAY 9, 1997

ORDER DENYING REVIEW

BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND HIGGINS

The proposed intervenor's request for review of the Regional
Director's refusal to allow the Communications Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, to intervene in Case 20-RC-17232 filed by International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union is denied.
The Employer recognized the Communications Workers of America (CWA),
in April 1996, prior to hiring any unit employees. In October 1996, an
employee filed charges alleging that the granting of recognition,
acceptance of recognition, and the collective-bargaining agreement based
on the recognition were violative of Sections 8(a)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act. Thereafter, a unilateral informal settlement agreement was
approved by the Regional Director which, in part, required the parties
to post a notice to employees and members. On January 31, 1997, the day
the Union began its posting, the International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union filed the petition. Thereafter, during the notice
posting period, the CWA attempted to intervene based on cards dated
after the alleged unlawful conduct but either before the settlement or
before the expiration of the notice posting period. Citing the NLRB
Casehandling Manual Representation Proceedings section 11730.8 (Part
Two), the hearing officer and the Regional Director denied intervention.
We agree with the hearing officer and the Regional Director that the
requirement that the showing of interest, submitted by a proposed
intervenor which has signed an informal settlement agreement requiring
that it cease acting as collective-bargaining representative unless and
until it is certified by the Board, must postdate the expiration of the
notice posting period is not an inappropriate extension of section
11730.8. The requirement assures that the proposed intervenor's showing
of interest is free from any lingering taint. Cf. Halben Chemical Co.,
124 NLRB 1431 (1959).
We note that the Regional Director, in his discretion, had left open
the hearing, and the submission of a signed authorization card dated
after the expiration of the notice posting period would have allowed
intervention and accorded the intervenor a place on the ballot. More
than 2 weeks have now elapsed since the notice posting period expired,
however, and the proposed intervenor failed to submit such a card.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 9, 1997

____________________________________
William B. Gould IV, Chairman

____________________________________
Sarah M. Fox, Member

____________________________________
John E. Higgins, Jr., Member

(seal) National Labor Relations Board