General Tire and Rubber Co.

In the Matter-of GENERAL TIRE A\Tn RUBBER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL,^,NO. 644, PETITIONER Case No. 1,6-RC-50--Decided September 10, 1948 DECISION- AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor .Relations Board. 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 meaning of ,the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question of representation 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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all maintenance elec- tricians and their helpers at the Employer's Baytown, Texas, syn- thetic rubber plant. The Employer contends that only the present plant-wide • unit 1 is an appropriate 'unit fbr - collective bargaining purposes. The Employer has no classification of journeymen electricians, and 5naintains no regular, apprentice program. It classifies its electrical employees as first-class electricians, second-class electricians, and helpp - ers. While the Employer may employ men who have been trained as electricians elsewhere, it also transfers employees from its other plant departments into the electrical department as "green" electrical helpers. Such helpers can and do advance to the grade of electrician second-class within 5 to 12 months, and from second-class to first-class I Machinists at the plant are not included in the plant unit, but bargain as a separate craft unit. 79 N. L. R. B, No. 76. 580 - 1 1 J 1 ,111 1, GENERAL TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY 581' electrician in a like period. The proposed craft unit would include, 'all electrical workers at the plant, other than instrument men. All Vhaiiltenande efnployt^es, indludiTig electricians, operate from_ the same shop. There are no dividing walls or partitions, but elec- 'tricians'do occupy a segregated space in the maintenance shop. All ma-imtenance employees are subjected to the same rules and regulations; and mode of payment; they utilize the same supply and toolrooms,, 'arid; 'e, ?fforded .the same facilities, vacations, and other benefits. 'Electricians repair and maintain electrical lines, switches, motors,, contacts, outlets, and sources of power supply. There is no evidence- .that electricians perform other than electrical work. There is some evidence to the effect that instrument men, in working on electronic instruments, perform electrical work and that machinists in working' on electrical motors, perform work that can be, and elsewhere is, done. by electricians. There is normally no interchange between electricians and other employees. Electricians presently are immediately under an elec- trical foreman, and they take orders as to how they shall perform their work from this foreman only. Due to the manner in which the, maintenance department is operated, electricians are oftentimes di-_ °rected by other maintenance foremen as to when and where they shall perform their work. The Employer contends that the electrical employees sought by the, Petitioner are not sufficiently skilled to constitute a true craft unit. We do not agree. The maintenance electricians employed by the, Employer possess skills and perform duties similar to those of main tenance electricians whom we have frequently found to constitute a_ distinct and homogeneous group, capable of forming a separate appro- priate craft unit for collective bargaining purposes.2 Maintenance, electrician helpers, who perform work similar to that performed by the- helpers involved in this proceeding, have been found to, be properly- included in a unit with such electricians.3 - The Employer contends that the operations of its maintenance, 'department are carried on in such an integrated manner as to preclude- a severance of any one group of employees therefrom. It cites as support for its contention an earlier case 4 respecting the Employer's plant, wherein the present Petitioner, in 1946, sought a separate unit of maintenance electricians and instrument men employed by the Employer. In that case, the Board dismissed the petition for an 2 Matter of Hughes Tool Company, 77 N. L. R B 1193; Matter of Lockheed Aircraft, Corporation, 77 N. L. R . B 507 ; Matter of Consolidated Pultee Aircraft Corporation, 75. N. L. R. B. 1276 ; Matter of B. F. Goodrich , Chemical Company, 75 N. L, R,,$. 1,142. a Matter of Waldorf-Paper Company, 76 N L R. B 127. 4 Matter of General Tire and Rubber Company, 66 N. L R. B. 453. 809095-49-vom. 79-38 -582 DECISIONS' OF' NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD electrical unit, stressing (1) the inclusion in the- proposed- electrical unit of instrument men, jurisdiction over whom was, claimed in part by 'another constituent member aof Tri-Cities ' Central Labor &,Trades Council, AFL, herein called'the Council, the then iecognized'bargain- ing representative of all'plant employees, except-machinists; (2) the -integration of -work of all, maintenance, employees through common -supervision of the maintenance department;' and (3). the; broad back- ground of collective bargaining on the-more inclusive basis. At the ,present time (1) the • Petitioner, does not -seek to include, instrument 'rnen,5 over whom there is some jurisdictional dispute between Ameri- ,can Federation of Labor affiliates, within its proposed=unit'of electrical ,employees; (2) because of this factor, the Council does not now oppose -the severance of an electrical unit as'it had in the earlier case; and (3)' due'to growth of the plant; electrical, employees now have separate immediate supervision within the maintenance department. On these facts, we find the past bargaining history on the more inclusive basis is not controlling on the scope of the unit for the Employer's electrical -employees. - We find, therefore, that all maintenance electricians employed at the Employer's Baytown, Texas, plant, including their helpers and 'leadmen,6 but excluding supervisors, may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of these employees as 'expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for ,the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. Otherwise we will dismiss the petition. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by -secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees de- scribed in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during •the.pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction The record does not fully disclose the duties of the instrument men. The parties agree, and we find, that leadmen should be included in the unit inasmuch as they are not supervisors within - the meaning of the Act. GENERAL TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY 583 of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay- roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 644. MEMBERS MURDOCK and GRAY, dissenting : We think that the Employer's contention, that the electrical em- ployees sought for craft severance are not sufficiently skilled to consti- tute a true craft unit, is well founded. Several months' training as a maintenance electrician's helper, repairing and maintaining electrical lines, switches, motors, contacts, outlets, and sources of power supply, without other training or instruction, does not qualify an employee to be a skilled electrician. Nor does the fact that the Employer may classify that employee as an electrician first-class or as an electrician second-class supply the element of skill requisite for electrical -craftsmanship. We are therefore unable to agree with the majority that the em- ployees involved herein constitute a skilled and homogeneous group, -and an appropriate unit separate and distinct from the other main- tenance employees at the Employer's plant. We would dismiss the petition. - 9ni .. ^n.Rr With- r1 nt .^