Question: Beginning in 1973, an employer's employees had been represented by Local P-706 of the then Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union. In December 1978, an employee filed a decertification petition in Case 11-RD-284, and the parties entered into a stipulated election agreement. Shortly thereafter, a notice was posted or mailed by the Meat Cutters announcing a meeting on December 30, 1978. Of the 176 unit employees, 16 attended the meeting and voted 15-1 for what was orally described as a "merger." On January 11, 1979, the NLRB election was held. Local P-706 remained the sole recipient of the 158 valid ballots cast. On May 4, 1979, the board issued its Decision and Certification of Representative to Local P-706, overruling, inter alia, the employer's objection, which contended that the Meat Cutters' holding of the merger vote had interfered with the election. Prior to the Board's decision, however, the following events had taken place. Since Local P-706 was an amalgamated local, the merger process was completed on February 17 when the employees of the other employers voted. The employer's employees were expressly excluded from this vote. The February 17 tally was in favor of merger, as of course was the combined tally of the December 30, 1978, and February 17 votes.

Pursuant to these votes, sometime in March, Local P-706 surrendered its charter to the Meat Cutters and admittedly became defunct. The board, which was then considering challenges and objections in the decertification proceeding, was not informed of this action. On July 6, Local 525 filed a petition in Case 11-AC-14 seeking to amend Local P-706's certification to reflect its merger into Local 525. On September 18, the regional director granted the employer's motion to dismiss on the ground that the December 30, 1978, merger vote was procedurally defective because the employees had not been given adequate notice of the union meeting at which the merger vote occurred. Local 525 did not request review of the regional director's decision. With a view to devising the "quickest way to settle the matter" and thereby remedy the deficiency of the December 30, 1978, vote, Local 525 sent a September 27 letter to all employees of the employer who had either been members of the then defunct Local P-706 or who had since signed membership cards for Local 525. The letter informed the recipients of an October 21 meeting whose sole purpose would be to vote again on the merger issue. This letter indicated that only "Union Members" would be eligible to vote. Of the 176 unit employees, 67 members were sent letters, of which 52 were received. The October 21 vote was 14-0 in favor of merger. Local 525 then petitioned the NLRB to be certified as the employees' collective bargaining representative. How should the NLRB have ruled on this petition? See Fast Food Merchandisers and Food & Commercial Workers, Local 525 [274 NLRB 143 (1985)].