Tinling and Powell

In the Matter of HUGH B. TINLING AND MRS. F. B. TINLING, CO-PART- NERS, D/B/A TINLING AND POWELL,1 EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 73, PETITIONER Case No. 19-RC-105.-Decided March 30, 194.9 DECISION AND ORDER 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. 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.* 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. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 73, herein called the Petitioner, and International Association of Machin- ists, Local 86, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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 for the following reasons : The Petitioner seeks, in effect, a unit confined to the electrical work- ers employed by the Employer in its motor repair shop, excluding machinists, professional employees, and supervisors 2 The Employer contends that there is no warrant for establishing such a unit as that proposed by the Petitioner because there is no special group of workers in its motor repair shop whose duties are confined strictly to electrical work. It further contends that all the employees in its motor repair shop are covered by a currently existing contract with the Intervenor. 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. *Reynolds , Murdock , and Houston. 2 The petition as amended at the hearing described the unit to include all leadmen, journeymen, apprentices, helpers, and general shopmen covering work classifications as armature winders , electric motor repair, and maintenance of electrical equipment. 82 N. L. R. B., No. 63. 526 TINLING AND POWELL 527 At its motor repair shop, the Employer is engaged in the business of repairing and installing electrical and mechanical machinery and equipment viz : engines, generators, transformers, Diesel engines, pumps, and compressors. There are approximately 30 employees at- tached to this shop, all of whom according to the Employer, are classi- rfied as motor repairmen or mechanics. These employees are skilled workers, some to a greater degree than others, and they perform their duties under the direction of the shop foreman. It appears that each piece of machinery and equipment brought to the Employer's shop for ,repairs is first inspected by the shop foreman or the superintendent in order to determine the nature of the work required to restore it to .operation. After this determination is made, the repair job is assigned to a motor repairman who performs whatever work is necessary. The Petitioner and the Intervenor contend that the employees in the motor repair shop are members of either the electrical craft or machinists craft and that the Employer observes craft lines in its allocation of work assignments. Although the operations of the Employer's repair shop require the use of some skills traditionally associated with both the electrical and the machinists craft, insofar as the record shows the Employer does not differentiate between its employees in its work assignments. All the motor repairmen appear to be qualified to repair electrical as well as mechanical equipment, some to a greater extent than others, and in the performance of their duties, they do both ma- chinist and electrical work. It further appears that for 10 years or more the Employer has maintained a program for the purpose of train- ing workers as motor repairmen. This training program is main- tained because of the difficulty of recruiting workers with skills broad ,enough in range to perform the work required of them. For at least 1 year, the employees in the Employer's repair shop have bargained on a two-unit basis with the Petitioner and the Intervenor each representing separate groups of workers. In 1946, these two unions entered into separate contracts with the Employer, each of which purported to cover the employees within the respective juris- diction of the contracting union. The Petitioner's contract expired in April 1947, and was not renewed, while the Intervenor's contract was succeeded by another contract executed by the parties in April 1948.3 The latter contract is currently in effect until April 1949.4 I In the wage schedule sections of the contracts various classifications of employees are listed together with their wage rates Thus, the Petitioner's contract which was executed on a multiple -employer basis listed the following classifications : Journeymen armature winder, electrical machinists , electrical welder, electrical shopmen and appren- tices. Both the Intervenor 's contracts list the following classifications : toolmakers ; journeymen , all classes ; specialists and helpers. * This contract also provides for its automatic renewal in the absence of a 60 -day notice by either party. 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Petitioner and the Intervenor contend that the Intervenor's cur- rent contract with the Employer covers the Employer's machinists and that the balance of the Employer's employees constitute the elec- trical workers whom the Petitioner would represent. The Employer, on the other hand, contends the afore-mentioned contract covers all the employees in its motor repair shop since they are all required to perform the duties of machinists as well as those of electrical workers. We find it unnecessary to determine the scope of this contract's cover- age because, on the basis of the record before us, there does not appear to be a group of electrical workers in the Employer's motor repair shop with skills sufficiently distinctive from those of other employees to warrant establishing them in a separate unit. Under these circum- stances, we are unable to find sufficient basis in the record for the establishment of such a unit as that requested by the Petitioner.5 Ac- cordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER HOUSTON, dissenting : My colleagues have dismissed the petition of the IBEW for a bar- gaining unit composed of those work classifications in the Employer's motor repair shop which are engaged in traditional electricians' tasks, for the reason that "there does not appear to be a group of electrical workers-with skill sufficiently distinctive from those of other employ- ees to warrant establishing them in a separate unit." This is a most puzzling rationale because no dispute is apparent in this record that the IBEW represented, in this shop, under a contract which expired in 1947, work classifications typically associated with the electricians' craft. I should have thought that that contract and the bargaining history flowing from it would be found quite adequate to support the present petition. But my colleagues make only passing reference to it, apparently attaching no significance to its impact on the issue before us. Their decision thus casually disregards a factor-bargaining his- tory under a valid collective agreement-which this Board has for many years considered among the most persuasive elements in the exe- 5 In reaching this conclusion , we have taken into consideration the fact that for at least 1 year some of the Employer's employees were represented by the Petitioner while others were represented by the Machinists in their dealings with the Employer under the con- tracts mentioned above. In effect, the Petitioner is seeking the establishment of a craft unit of electricians ; the record shows that such a craft group among the Employer's employees is impossible of identification Under these circumstances , we cannot agree with the position taken by our dissenting colleague that the afore -mentioned bargaining history, which was not predicated on a unit determination of the Board , should be given controlling weight in resolving the unit issue. TINLING AND POWELL 529 cution of its function to determine appropriate units for collective bargaining purposes. That this novel departure should appear in a case in which the Employer has given no cogent reason beyond a few conclusionary statements as to a change in its operations remains for me doubly puzzling. I must record an emphatic disagreement with this disposition.