Ravenna Arsenal, Inc., 1 (1951)

RAVENNA ARSENAL, INC., and LOCAL 810, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL W,ox Ens, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC1460. February 1, 1952

Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Flemming, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].

Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :

1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.

2. The Intervenor, Local 4581, United Steelworkers of America,

   CIO, contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act because it admits to membership employees of the United States Government. However, the Petitioner does not seek to be certified as the bargaining representative of any employee of the United States Government in this proceeding. Moreover, it is undisputed that the Petitioner is an organization to which employees of the Employer belong and that it exists, at least in part, for the, purpose of bargaining with the Employer with respect to wages, hours, and other working conditions of such employees. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.2

3. The Intervenor contends that the petition herein was untimely filed and that Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act prohibits the holding of an election in the requested unit of maintenance electricians because an ' At the hearing in this matter and in its brief , the Intervenor , Local 4581 , United Steelworkers of America , CIO, contended that the hearing officer was biased , prejudiced, and partial, alleging that he cut off the Intervenor 's examination of witnesses. subjected the Intervenor's witnesses to severe cross-examination , and developed - the Petitioner's case through the examination of other witnesses . Our review of the record discloses no support for the contention of the Intervenor We find that such rulings as the hearing officer made curtailing the extent of the Intervenor 's examination of witnesses were necessary and proper to limit the testimony to relevant matters and to prevent repetitious and cumulative testimony. Nor is there any basis for the Intervenor 's contention that the hearing officer improperly cross-examined the Intervenor 's witnesses and developed the Petitioner's case As representation proceedings are investigatory rather than adversary, it is the hearni officer' s function to produce a full presentation of factual material upon which the Board can decide the issues involved The record does not disclose bias, prejudice, partiality or incapability on the part of the hearing officer Nor does it disclose that any party Alas denied the opportunity to introduce pertinent evidence , or was otherwise prejudiced Accordingly, we find the Intervenor's contention to be without merit Anqus Chea,rolet Co 88 NLRB 929, General Plywood Corporation, 79 NLRB 1458, Stokely Foods, Inc, 78

   NLRB 842.

   2 Section 2 (5) of the Act. Cf. American Broadcasting Company, Inc , 93 NLRB 1410, footnote 3 ; International Brotherhood of Teamsters , 87 NLRB 702, 721.

   98 NLRB No. 10.

   I Z DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election was held in an over-all production and maintenance unit at the Employer's plant on October 2, 1951. The sequence of events on which the Intervenor bases its contention is as follows :

   On August 22,1951, the Intervenor filed a petition in Case No. 8-RC1411, seeking certification as bargaining representative for employees, including maintenance electricians, in a production and maintenance unit at the Employer's plant. On September 20, 1951, a hearing was held on the Intervenor's petition in Case No. 8-RC-1411. The Petitioner herein was not served with notice of the hearing in Case No.

   8-RC-1411, nor did it intervene in those proceedings. On September 24, 1951, the Board in Washington issued its decision 3 in Case No.

   8-RC-1411, directing an election in a production and maintenance unit which included the maintenance electricians. On the same day, September 24, 1951, but after the issuance of the Board's decision in Case No. 8-RC-1411, the Petitioner filed its petition in this case at Cleveland. The election directed in Case No. 8-RC-1411 was held on October 2, 1951, and the Intervenor was designated as bargaining representative by a majority of the employees in the unit. However, the ballots cast by maintenance electricians were challenged and impounded pending disposition of the petition filed in this case. On October 16,1951, the Regional Director for the Eighth Region certified the Intervenor as the bargaining representative for employees in the production and maintenance unit at the Employer's plant, excepting therefrom the maintenance electricians whose ballots had been challenged and impounded.

   The Intervenor contends that this case is governed by those decisions in which the Board has held that a labor organization is not entitled to intervene in a case where it does not make its showing of interest prior to the hearing in that case.' However, the records of the Board show that on September 16, 1951, and prior to the hearing in Case No. 8-RC-1411, the Petitioner herein had made a showing of interest sufficient to support a petition for a unit of maintenance electricians at the Employer's plant. It follows, therefore, that the cases cited by the Intervenor do not govern this case. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner herein should have been given notice of the hearing in Case No. 8-RC-1411 and permitted to intervene in that case.

   The Intervenor contends, however, that regardless of whether or not the Petitioner herein was served with formal notice of the hearing in Case No. 8-RC-1411, it had actual notice of the hearing, and that, having failed to present its claim of representation at that time, the Petitioner...