Gold Medal Dairies, Inc.

In the Matter of GOLD MEDAL DAIRIES, INC., EivirLoYER and INTERN A- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 374, AFL, PE- TITIONER Case No. 19-U-4-1767. -Decided Jwne 20, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a •hear'ing in this case was held at Mis- soula, Montana, on April 25,1'949, before Hubert J. Merrick, heariiig officer of the National Labor Relations Board: ' The hearing officer's rulirigs.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-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and 4 Murdock]. Upon the eritir'e,record in,this case, the Board finds: 11 . The Employer is' engaged in 'comm'er'ce within the meaning of the Act. 2: The Petitioner is a labor organization 'representing employees of I "I the Employer. , 3. For at least the last 4 years, the Employer has recognized the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining, representative of the employees involved.lierein.- The parties are presently'bound under a contract expiring July 1, 1949, covering these same employees. The Petitioner has established by documentary evidence that 30 percent of the eni- ployees'in the unit; represented by it desire to authorize the, Petitioner; to make an agreement with the Employer requiring membership in the Petitioner as a condition of continued employment in such unit. As the Employer currently recognizes the Petitioner, no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the em- ployees bf the Employer in the unit sought by the Petitioner. We find that the requirements for a union-shop authorization elec- tion, set forth in Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act, having been met. 4. There are only two employees in the unit sought by the Peti- tioner; these are the chief engineer and his assistant. The Employer 84 N. L. R. B., No. 51. 426 GOLD MEDAL DAIRIES, INC. 427 maintains that the chief - engineer is ,a supervisor ,within the meaning of the Act,because,of his supervision of a single assistant. It objects to his being included in the union-shop voting unit although it has not opposed his inclusion' in the collective bargaining unit. The chief engineer and his helper make up the engineering depart- ment of the Employer. , Their duties consist of firing the boiler, check- ing and repairing refrigeration equipment, working on plumbing, ,And general.,maintenance work. Both amen have been licensed as engineers• by the State of Montana: The 'chief engineer is,the more experienced man and directs the work of his helper., The latter does the more routine work such as checking boilers, valves; and 'other equipment. Major repairs are handled by the chief engineer but he also does the routine work. Practically all his time is spent in manual labor, supervision being a very small part of his work. The chief engineer cannot hire or discharge his helper. He has been consulted on the technical qualifications of an applicant for the job of his helper. During the year preceding the hearing, the then chief engineer successfully recommended a friend of his to be his helper. On the basis of the above facts and upon the entire record, we are of the opinion that the relationship of the chief engineer to his helper is primarily that of the more skilled to the lesser skilled craftsman, and not that of supervisor to subordinate. Accordingly, we find that the chief engineer is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we will include him in the unit.,, We find that the engineers at the Employer's Missoula, Montana, plant, excluding all other employees of the Employer, guards, pro- fessional and supervisory employees as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION Pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direc- tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Section 203.61 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during 1 Matter of Arrow Throwing Rayon Company, 76 N. L. R . B. 1335 ; Matter of Pevely Dairy Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1683 ; Matter of The Austin Company, 77 N L R. B 938 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but exclud- ing those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elec- tion, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they, desire to author- ize International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 374, AFL, to make an agreement with the Employer requiring membership in the aforesaid labor organization as a condition of continued employ- ment in such unit.