W. & J. Sloane

In the Matter of W. & J. SLOANE, EMPLOYER and LOCAL No. 3, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. OF L ., PETI- TIONER Case No. 2 RC-624. Decided April 8, 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. The labor organizations named below claim to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner contends that electrical employees at the Employ- er's New York City warehouse constitute a separate unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Employer and W. & J. Sloane Employees' Association, which has been the recognized bar- gaining agent for its members employed in the warehouse, contend that the proposed unit is not an appropriate bargaining unit, urging (a) that one of the two employees whom the Petitioner seeks to rep- resent is a general maintenance man rather than an electrical em- ployee and should not be included in a separate electrical unit from which general maintenance employees are excluded, and (b) that the Board should not set up a separate unit for the single employee who devotes substantially all his time to electrical work. *Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray. 82 N. L. R. B., No. 108. 924 W. & J. SLOANE 925 The Employer operates several retail stores located in different cities throughout the United States. This proceeding directly concerns em- ployees who work at its New York City warehouse. This warehouse is a building 10 stories high, with approximately 300 employees, among whom are clerical workers, guards, watchmen, and shipping and pro- duction employees. In its warehouse, the Employer operates a maintenance department of five workers under the direct supervision of the department man- ager. Of these five maintenance employees, two take care of the boiler room and furnaces, and one makes general mechanical repairs through- out the building. The remaining two employees are those who the Petitioner claims are electricians and whom it seeks to include in its proposed craft unit. The disputed employees are Peter Onorato and Richard Norman. Onorato: The parties agree that Onorato is a skilled experienced electrician who spends by far the greater part of his working time on electrical maintenance work. He holds an on-premise electrician's license issued by the city of New York and is the certified maintenance electrician for the building. Norman: Norman has been employed at the Employer's warehouse for approximately 8 months. Norman made application for work, and was hired, as a "maintenance man." 1 Before his employment at the warehouse, Norman had had some experience as a maintenance man and some courses in electricity during his 3-year period of military service. At the time Norman was hired, he did not have an elec- trician's license. During the last few months, on his own initiative, he took, and passed, an examination for an electrician's license. The department manager at the hearing characterized him as a "good elec- trician." Norman does carpentry work, plumbing work, cleaning, and general mechanical and electrical repairs at the warehouse. Norman testified that during the first 20 weeks of his employment he did electrical work, unassisted, but after that time he spent approx- imately five-sixths of his time doing electrical work. The department manager, on the other hand, testified that while Onorato spent 80 to 90 percent of his time on electrical work, Norman spent approximately 20 to 30 percent of his time on electrical work, and that these percentages have been approximately the same during the entire time of Norman's employment. Entries in the daily record book, showing the distribu- tion of Norman's time among the several jobs assigned to him, such as running a passenger elevator, repairing windows, and mechanical re- 1 Onorato, on the other hand, was hired as the electrical maintenance man at the ware- house, and the Employer pays his license fees to keep his license current. 926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pairs, indicate the wide distribution of the greater part of his time on non-electrical jobs. The record indicates that the Employer has substantial electrical work for only one employee at the warehouse, and that Onorato is the experienced employee to whom the electrical work is primarily given. Because Norman clearly serves primarily as a general maintenance employee at the warehouse, it appears that his work interests lie more closely with those of maintenance employees generally, rather than with the interests of Onorato alone. We do not believe that Norman should be placed in a bargaining unit apart from the general mainte- ance employees at the warehouse 2 Although Onorato is clearly a skilled electrician engaged in elec- trical maintenance work and is the kind of electrical employee whom we have said may be included in separate electrical units for the pur- poses of collective bargaining,3 we have held that one employee may not constitute a collective bargaining unit under Section 9 (a) and (b) of the Act 4 ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board orders that the petition for investigation and certification filed herein by Local No. 3, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ' Matter of Rice-Stun Dry Goods Company, 78 N. L. It. B. 311. ' Matter of The National Cash Register Company, 74 N. L. R. B. 1350. * Matter of Griffin Wheel Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1471 ; and cases cited therein.