Centennial Development Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1284 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Centennial Development Company and Laborers'
'District Council of the State of Arizona, AFL-
CIO; and International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 428, AFL-CIO, Joint Petition-
ers. Cases 28-RC-2775 and 28-RC-2776
June 30, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On September 10, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 28 issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the
petitions for two single project units of construction,
production, and maintenance employees, finding
them inappropriate for severance from an established
employerwide unit represented by the Intervenor,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. He
made no disposition of the Joint Petitioners' alterna-
tive request for an election in the existing employer-
wide unit, as he deemed the record inadequate.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Joint Petitioners filed
a timely request for review of the Regional Director's
decision on the grounds, inter alia, that he erred in
not ruling on their alternative unit request. The
Employer filed opposition thereto. The Joint Peti-
tioners filed a supplement to their request for review,
and the Employer filed opposition to it and a motion
to strike. Thereafter, the Regional Director decided
to treat the request for review as a motion for
reconsideration, and, on January 24, 1975, he issued
a Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election,
in which he found the alternatively requested unit to
be appropriate and directed an election therein, on
the basis of his determination that the Joint Petition-
ers had submitted a sufficient showing of interest
therefor. Thereafter, the Employer and the Interve-
nor filed requests for review of the Regional
Director's supplemental decision on the grounds,
inter alia, that , in failing to find a contract bar to an
election in the existing unit, he departed from
precedent. The Joint Petitioners filed opposition to
their requests for review.
By telegraphic order dated February 25, 1975, the
Intervenor's and the Employer's requests for review
were granted and the election stayed, pending
decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and finds
that no question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Employer and the Intervenor take the position
that, because the existing employerwide unit is much
larger and substantially different in character from
the single project units which the Joint Petitioners
originally petitioned for, it was incumbent on them,
in support of their amended request for the existing
unit, to submit an adequate showing of employee
interest therefor. And they contend that, absent
submission of a showing of interest for such an
election prior to their execution of a new contract
covering the existing unit, their contract operates as a
bar to an election herein. We find merit in this
contention.
The Employer, which is headquartered at Salt Lake
City, Utah, is engaged in mine construction through-
out the United States. Since 1947 the Intervenor has
continuously represented all construction, pro-
duction, and maintenance employees at its various
project sites and at its fabrication shop in Eureka,
Utah. At the -time the Joint Petitioners filed the
instant petitions on June 13, 1974, the Intervenor's
contract covering an employerwide unit was sched-
uled to expire on August 31, 1974. In the course of
the hearing held herein on August 7 and 8, during the
insulated period of that contract, the Joint Petition-
ers for the first time indicated that, in the alternative,
should their requested single project units be found
inappropriate, they wished to represent the employ-
ees in the existing employerwide unit.
On September 13, 1974, 3 days after the Regional
Director issued his decision finding the single project
units inappropriate and dismissing the petitions, the
Intervenor and the Employer executed a new
contract, effective September 1, 1974, through
August 31, 1977.1 On October 1, the Joint Petitioners
filed a new petition for an election in the employer-
wide unit. As above indicated, the Regional Director
in his supplemental decision decided to treat the
Joint Petitioners' request for review of his dismissal
of their petitions as a motion for reconsideration, and
he directed an election in the employerwide unit,
finding the contract executed on September 13 not to
be a bar. He so concluded for the stated reason that,
if an election had been directed by him in his original
decision, the Joint Petitioners would have been
permitted a period of time following his decision to
I The Intervenor states that the Employer had agreed with it on August 22 , 1974, to extend their current agreement , on an interim basis, to
'September 15, 1974.
218 NLRB No. 196
CENTENNIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. 1285
submit a sufficient showing of interest to support the
broader unit or to withdraw their petitions. And he
went on to state that he had determined, administra-
tively, that the showing of interest submitted by the
Joint Petitioners in support of the instant petitions,
as well as that submitted to support their new
petition, was sufficient to warrant an election in the
employerwide unit.
Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that the
contract executed by the Intervenor and the Employ-
er on September 13 bars an immediate election in the
existing unit. Where a petitioner broadens its
originally petitioned-for unit to one which is substan-
tially larger and different in character, the broadened
unit request is treated by the Board as tantamount to
a new petition and as such must be supported by an
adequate showing of interest timely submitted.2
Clearly, the existing employerwide unit alternatively
sought by the Joint Petitioners is basically different
in character from their primarily requested single
project units. In the circumstances, inasmuch as their
primarily requested units were judged to be inappro-
priate, they could obtain an election in the existing
2 See Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 1000 (1958), fn.
12, Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 200 NLRB 1 (1972), Polk Brothers
Central Appliance and Furniture Company, 105 NLRB 251 (1953); Hyster
Company, 72 NLRB 937 (1947) The cases of Rappahannock Sportswear Co.,
unit only if two conditions were met: first, the
insulated period must have elapsed without execu-
tion of a new agreement to succeed the one which
expired on August 31, 1974, and, second, a sufficient
showing of interest to support an election in the
existing unit must have been obtained before
September 13, the date of execution of a new
contract by the Intervenor and the Employer.3 While
the first of these conditions was met, the second was
not, as we are advised administratively that the Joint
Petitioners did not obtain a sufficient interest
showing until after the new contract covering the
employerwide unit was executed.
Accordingly, as we have found that the Interve-
nor's new contract with the Employer bars an
election in the existing unit, we shall dismiss the
petitions herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed in Cases
28-RC-2775 and 28-RC-2776 be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.
Inc., 163 NLRB 703 (1967), and Manheim Division of Raybestos Manhattan,
Inc, 202 NLRB 97 (1973), relied on by the Regional Director , are thus
clearly inapposite.
3 See Malhnckrodt Chemical Works, supra