United States Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 9, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1248 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP DIVISION OF UNITED STATES
STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No . 8-RC-2039. October
9, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was duly held before John
Vincek, hearing officer. The hearing officer' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer moved to dismiss the present petition on
the ground that it was untimely filed. On September 12, 1952,
a Board election was conducted in the bargaining unit here
involved (Case No. 8-RC-1712). The results were inconclusive
and a runoff election for or against the Petitioner was sched-
uled.2 The runoff election was postponed because of inter-
vening unfair labor practice charges, and on April 8, 1953,
the Board refused to establish a current eligibility date for
the imminent runoff election. This decision, adverse to the
Petitioner's request, rested on the long-established rule
which requires that eligibility to vote in a runoff election
be limited to those eligible to vote in the original election. 3
In June 1953 the Petitioner requested permission to with-
draw its petition in Case No. 8-RC-1712. The Employer op-
posed the request on the ground that the Petitioner in fact
intended to file a second petition, and sought only to evade
the Board's eligibility rules for runoff elections by with-
drawing its petition. The Board nevertheless granted the
request on July 8, 1953.
The Employer' s argument here is essentially a reiteration
of its original contention that, in observance of the Board's
runoff rules, the Petitioner should be required to go to an
election on the basis of the original eligibility date established
for the 1952 election. It therefore labels the present petition
as an evasion of the Board's rules.
We agree that the established eligibility rule for runoff
elections must be observed and that attempted evasions of
1 The Employer's request for oral argument is denied as the record and the Employer's
brief adequately present the issues and the Employer's position.
2 Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL, which is now
a party to this proceeding as Intervenor, was also on the ballot in the 1952 election but did
not win enough votes to participate in any runoff election.
3 Section 102.62 (b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended, provides:
"Employees who were eligible to vote in the election and who are employed in an eligible
category on the date of the runoff election shall be eligible to vote in the runoff election "
106 NLRB No. 213.
FAWCETT-DEARING PRINTING COMPANY 1249
that rule should not and will not be permitted. In this case, how-
ever, we note that the Petitioner was permittedto withdraw its
earlier petition without prejudice and at a time when the Board
was on notice of the probable intention of Petitioner to file a
second petition. If the present petition is dismissed , the Peti-
tioner can go to an early election only on motion to reinstate the
original direction of election. In that event the eligibility date will
be at least 3 months older than it would have been had the Board,
on July 8, advised the Petitioner that withdrawal would only be
permitted with prejudice against the filing of another petition.
Therefore, we shall not dismiss this petition. However, it will
be our future policy to grant a request to withdraw on the part
of a petitioning union under these circumstances only on condi-
tion that we shall not entertain a second petition, following with-
drawal from a runoff election, until 1 year after the request for
withdrawal is granted. This we deemto be necessary in order to
prevent abuse and evasion of our runoff-election procedures.
The Employer also argues that the issuance of a complaint
against it precludes the Board from holding any election at this
time. As the unfair labor practice charges against the Employer
have been waived as a basis for objecting to any election that
might be directed, we find no merit in this contention. 4
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Board finds, in accordance with the stipulation of
the parties, that all unlicensed seamen onboard the Employer's
vessels on the Great Lakes, including boatswains, but exclud-
ing all licensed personnel, stewards and/or chief cooks, guards,
professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
4J. V. Reed & Company, 105 NLRB 721.
FAWCETT-DEARING PRINTING COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL MAILERS UNION, Petitioner and LOUISVILLE
SPECIALITIES AND PAPER PRODUCTS UNION NO. 561,
INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 9-RC-1905.
October 9, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
On March 27, 1953, the Petitioner filed its representation
petition for all shipping and warehouse employees, with certain
106 NLRB No. 216.