National Carbide Corp.

In the Matter of NATIONAL CARBIDE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 369, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L., PETITIONER Case No. 9-RC-367.-Decided July 8, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before Harold V. Carey, hearing officer. At the close of the hearing the Em- ployer moved to dismiss the petition upon various grounds stated below. The hearing officer reserved ruling on the motion for the .Board. For reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is denied.' 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 organizations named below claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer. I The Employer bases its motion to dismiss upon the ground that the Petitioner in March, 1943 , renounced its representation of the Employer 's production and maintenance employees and agreed to their representation by Local 320 , International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, A. F. L., Intervenor herein. There is no evidence in the record that a contract renouncing the representation of such employees exists ; even assuming there is a contract, it would, under established Board policy , have long ceased before this date to constitute a 'bar to this proceeding. The Employer's contention is, therefore, rejected. The Employer also asserts, in support of its motion to dismiss „ that since the Petitioner's renouncement as representative of the production and maintenance employees it has been "unduly harassed " by two unsuccessful petitions of the Petitioner . The first petition seeking a craft unit of electricians was filed March 19, 1946, and later withdrawn by the Petitioner upon the recommendation of the Field Examiner . The second petition seeking the same unit of electricians was filed April 25, 19 47, and dismissed by the Board in its Decision and Order dated May 3, 1948 ( 77 N. L. R. B. 454 ). From the facts in the record, we do not believe that the Employer has been unduly harassed by the previous petitions. Furthermore , the Act does not limit the number of petitions that may be filed concerning the representation of a unit of employees , but only limits the number of elections which may be held within the same bargaining unit or subdivision thereof within a period of 12 months. Accordingly , we find no merit in this contention of the Employer. The further contention of the Employer in support of its motion to dismiss , that the unit sought is inappropriate , is rejected for reasons stated in paragraph 4, infra. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 15. 103 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks certification as exclusive bargaining rep- resentative of a unit of maintenance electricians at the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act. The Intervenor takes no position as to the appropriateness of the unit sought. The Employer contends that the unit requested is inappropriate, on the ground that the electricians are not craftsmen and do not comprise a separate identifiable group apart from the general maintenance group, and also upon the ground that the bar- gaining history on a broader basis precludes the finding of a separate unit for electricians. The Employer's operations at its Louisville plant are divided into 4 main divisions referred to as coke drying and raw materials, fur- nace, crushing and packing, and maintenance divisions. The main- tenance division, which has about 59 employees, is under the general supervision of the plant superintendent and consists of the mechanical and electrical departments which have 49 and 10 employees, respec- tively. Of the 10 employees in the electrical maintenance department, 7 are first-class maintenance men, 1 is a second-class maintenance man and 2 are helpers. Each of the 2 maintenance departments is in a separate room and under separate supervision. The mechanical main- tenance department is under the supervision of a mechanical engi- neer and the electrical maintenance department is under the super- vision of an electrical engineer. Although the Employer has no formal apprenticeship training program, 8 of the 10 employees in the electrical department were hired with an electrical. background. The normal advancement for the maintenance electrician is from helper to second class and from there to first-class electrician. The operations of the Employer are dependent upon electrical power; it is the responsibilty of the electricians to maintain all elec- trical equipment and make immediate repairs in case of break-downs. They repair and maintain electrical lines, cranes, switches, motors, and contacts. They also check causes for motor overloading, clean generators, replace fuses, bend conduits, and do trouble shooting. While it is true that some of their work, such as changing light bulbs and turning on and off lights is routine in character, it is clear and the Employer admits that a substantial portion of the electricians' work requires the exercise of the skill and training which is tradi- tionally associated with the electrical eraft.2 I The Petitioner contends that 90 percent of the work done by the electricians Is of a craft nature and the Employer agrees that about 60 percent of such work has craft characteristics NATIONAL CARBIDE CORPORATION 105 The Employer, however, argues that the electricians do not con- stitute an appropriate unit because they perform some nonelectrical work such as cutting weeds and pumping water out of manholes. It appears that the only weeds cut by the electricians are the weeds at a high voltage substation, which require a very few hours each year. It also appears that the only manholes pumped by the electricians are those which contain high voltage cables. This operation consumes only a very small portion of their time. In both of the foregoing jobs the electricians are subject to special occupational hazards from high- voltage wires. We find, accordingly, that the present record reveals a substantially different situation from that disclosed by the evidence adduced in an earlier case, where we found that these electricians did not have sufficient craft characteristics to warrant their severance from a plant-wide unit.3 The record as a whole reveals that the unit sought by the Petitioner is substantially a traditional craft group of maintenance electricians separately supervised and located, of a type which the Board has established on numerous occasions in separate craft units for the pur- poses of collective bargaining where they so desired it, notwithstand- ing their previous inclusion in a broader Unit .4 We find that the following employees may constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all maintenance electricians and their helpers at the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain 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 bargaining unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5 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- 0 3 Matter of National Carbide Corporation, 77 N. L. R. B. 454. (1943) 4 Matter of Indiana Limestone Company Inc., 83 N. L. R. B., No. 157; Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 83 N. L. R. B., No. 59 ; Matter of Hughes Aircraft Company, 81 N. L. It. B. 867; Matter of United States Rubber Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 17; Matter of Todd Shipyards Corporation, 80 N. L. R. B. 382. 6 Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt resquest to, and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. .106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the voting group found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election , includ- ing 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 they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Electrical Workers Union Local 369 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., or by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 320, A. F. L., or by neither. MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 0