Eagle Pencil Co.

In the Matter of EAGLE PENCIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 3, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. O-RC-876.Decided April 20, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Lloyd S. Greenidge, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. During the course of the hearing and at its close, the Intervenor 1 and the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Act is unconstitutional. In the Rite-Form Corset case,2 the Board considered and rejected substantially the same contention urged herein. For the reasons set forth in that case, the motion to dismiss is denied.3 The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .4 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* 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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. a United Pencil Workers , Local Industrial Union, No 34, CIO a Matter of Rtite-Form Corset Company, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 174. The Employer's and Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is inappropriate is also denied for the reasons given below. * At the hearing, the Intervenor and its parent body, the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations, sought to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of existing contractual interests. ,over the Petitioner's objection, the hearing officer granted the Intervenor 's motion, but denied the motion of the CIO on the ground that it had no contractual interest. The hearing officer 's rulings in this matter are hereby affirmed *Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray. 82 N. L. R. B., No. 33. 263 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.5 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all electrical maintenance mechanics and assistants employed by the Employer in New York City, excluding all other employees, and all supervisors. The Em- ployer and the Intervenor contend that the proposed unit is inappro- priate because of the history of collective bargaining involving these employees on a plant-wide basis,6 and because of the integration of their work with that of other engineering division employees. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of pencils and other stationery articles. Its plant comprises approximately 10 buildings and is divided into several major departments, one of which is desig- nated as the department of manufacturing. Included within this department are approximately 4 production divisions and 1 non-pro- duction division, known as the engineering division. The engineering division is under the direction of a plant engineer, and is subdivided into a number of departments, including an electricians' department, each of which is under the immediate supervision of a supervisor who is directly responsible to the plant engineer. The unit proposed by the Petitioner would include all electrical maintenance mechanics in the plant and consists of approximately six employees. Of these six employees three are classified as Grade A electricians, one as Grade B electrician, one as Grade C electrician, and one as'helper; the difference in grade classifications being depend- ent upon the degree of skill and knowledge possessed by the respective employees. The Employer has no classification of journeymen elec- tricians and does not maintain any apprenticeship training program. Grade promotions are dependent primarily upon ability and vacancies.' The Employer's plant and machines are powered by electricity. The electrical maintenance mechanics are housed in a shop which is approximately 30 feet square, and is screened off by wire mesh from The Intervenor contends that an agreement with the Employer , executed on February 11, 1949, is a bar to this proceeding . An earlier contract between the parties, the auto- matic renewal of which was forestalled by the Intervenor's timely notice of modification, expired by its terms on January 31, 1949. Inasmuch as the petition herein was filed on November 17, 1948, prior to the execution of such an agreement , the Intervenor's contention is without merit. The record shows that the Intervenor has represented the Employer 's employees on a plant-wide basis, including the electrical maintenance mechanics , for a period of approximately 11 years. ' The record shows that a Grade B electrician was advanced to Grade A electrician in approximately 18 months to 2 years and that a helper was advanced to Grade C elec. trician after approximately 2 years ; these periods are based upon the experience of employees in the proposed unit. EAGLE PENCIL COMPANY 265 the rest of the engineering departments. They are under the super- vision of the chief electrician and work throughout the plant under plans and specifications which must be approved by municipal au- thorities. Their work includes the installation and maintenance of power panels, lighting panels, and circuits; the maintenance and wir- ing of electric motors and generators; and the installation and repair of electrical connections to automatic devices, pumps, fire alarms, and air conditioning equipment. Approximately 75 percent of their time is spent in the performance of electrical installation work, and the balance of 25 percent in making electrical repairs to production ma- chines. Although at times they work in connection with other em- ployees in repairing or installing machinery and equipment, they are engaged exclusively in electrical work; there is no interchange of electricians with employees in other departments of the plant, and no other group of employees performs electrical work. They have substantially the same hours and general working conditions as the Employer's other engineering division employees. We have generally held that employees engaged in craft work of a distinctive nature, possessing skills and performing duties similar to those of the electrical maintenance mechanics herein, may be severed from an existing plant-wide unit according to their wishes as ex- pressed in a self-determination election, notwithstanding a history of bargaining on a broader basis.8 However, we have denied the sever- ance of electricians from a plant-wide unit even in the presence of distinctive craft characteristics, when under certain circumstances the work performed by the electricians was an integral and inseparable part of a production process performed on an assembly line basis.9 Relying on this exception as expressed in the Ford case,10 the Em- ployer and the Intervenor urge that the electrical maintenance me- chanics perform their functions in such close cooperation with the Employer's other engineering division employees as to constitute a part of a highly integrated production process. The record in this case clearly shows, however, that the Employer's operations are not performed on such an assembly line basis and that the electrical main- tenance mechanics are not regularly assigned to any portion of the production process, but have assignments that take them to all parts of the plant to perform jobs that vary as to type and circumstance."' We conclude, therefore, that the work of the electrical maintenance 8 Matter of United States Rubber Company , 81 N. L. R. B. 17 ; Matter of Mergenthaler Linotype Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 132; Matter of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 77 N. L R. B 501; Matter of Hughes Tool Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 1193. e Matter of Ford Motor Company (Maywood Plant ), 78 N. L. R. B. 887. io See footnote 9, supra. " Matter of Hunter Packing Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 197. 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mechanics herein, although essential to the continuous operation of the plant, is not analogous to that of the electricians in the Ford case. We find that the electrical maintenance mechanics may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit notwithstanding their previous inclusion in a broader unit. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the de- sires of the employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If, in this election, the employees in the voting group described below select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate collective bargaining unit. We shall not place the name of the Intervenor on the ballot, as it has not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. We shall direct an election among the following employees in the Employer's New York City plant : All electrical maintenance mechanics and their assistants, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 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 Second Region and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the voting group described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction 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. 3, AFL.