Chase Candy Co.

In the Matter Of CHASE CANDY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCALS Nos. 2, 2A, 2B, AND 2C, AFL, PETITIONER In the Matter Of CHASE CANDY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1, AFL, PETITIONER Cases Nos. 14-RC-604 and 14-RC-610.-Decided January 9, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated 1 hearing was held in this case on November 16 and 18, 1949, at St. Louis, Missouri, before Ralph E. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul- ings 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to- represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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. 4. The Petitioner in Case No. 14-RC-604, herein referred to as the Engineers, seeks to represent a unit of boiler room employees at the Employer's plant in St. Louis, Missouri. The Petitioner in Case No. 14-RC-610, herein referred to as the IBEW, wants to sever a unit of electricians from a plant-wide production and maintenance unit now represented by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, The Regional Director consolidated the captioned cases on October 28, 1949. 88 NLRB No. 5. 27 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 688, AFL, herein re- ferred to as the Teamsters 2 The Teamsters and the Employer con- tend that the units sought are inconsistent with the history of collective bargaining at the plant and that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. They further maintain that the boiler room unit sought by the En- gineers is inappropriate, and that the electricians claimed by the IBEW do not constitute a severable craft group. Finally, the Team- sters contend that, of the two electricians involved, one is °a super- visor, and that therefore the unit requested by the IBEW is inap- propriate as containing but one employee. The Employer is engaged at its St. Louis, Missouri, plant, the only plant involved in this proceeding, in the manufacturing of candy bars, and bulk and packaged candies. Since 1939, the Employer and its predecessor 3 have entered into a series of collective bargaining con- tracts with the Teamsters and its predecessors.4 Until 1949, the Team- sters and its predecessors were the exclusive bargaining representa- tives for all the production and maintenance employees in the plant, except for boiler room engineers. The latter were excluded from the 1947 contract, at which time the Employer entered into a separate agreement with the Engineers for such employees. The current con- tracts, held by the Teamsters and the Engineers, having been entered into after the questions of representation were raised by this pro- ceeding, cover only the members of these Unions. The Engineers 'represent engineers, firemen, and coal passers in the boiler room, and the Teamsters represent other production and maintenance employees. The IBEW had not attempted to bargain for the electricians before filing its petition herein. The boiler room employees There are four engineers, three firemen, and two coal passers in the boiler room unit sought by the Engineers. These employees are in the maintenance division under the general supervision of the super- intendent of maintenance. The engineers, three of whom are licensed, are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the boiler room equipment, refrigeration equipment,5 and all pressure vessels in the plant. The firemen and coal passers rarely work outside the boiler room, which is separately located in a subbasement of the plant. Al- 2 The motion of the Teamsters to intervene at the hearing was granted, without objection, on the basis of its existing contract with the Employer. 8 The National Candy Company, to which the Employer is the legal successor, executed all the contracts before 194T. A Three different unions held the earlier contracts. The Teamsters was recognized by the Employer as the successor in interest to those unions. 5 Other maintenance division employees occasionally do work in connection with the refrigeration equipment, but the parties stipulated, and we agree, that such employees should not be included in the unit sought by the Engineers. CHASE CANDY COMPANY 29 though the engineers do most of their work in the boiler room, they are occasionally required to work elsewhere in the plant. Only on rare occasions do other employees work in the boiler room. The boiler room employees are a readily identifiable and func- tionally coherent group of employees such as the Board has repeatedly found may, despite a history of bargaining on a broader basis, be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.6 The electricians There are 2 electricians, designated "A" and "B," in the Employer's maintenance division. They are primarily responsible for the per- formance of all electrical construction and maintenance work in the plant; they do nothing but electrical work. Douglas, the "A" elec- trician, is a licensed, journeyman electrician with 30 years' experience. Masek, the "B" electrician, though not licensed, has worked for the Employer as an electrician for 7 years, and the record demonstrates that he is a skilled and experienced one. During the past year, a large part of the work done by the electricians has been in connection with the installation in the St. Louis plant of electrical equipment moved from other plants of the Employer. The routine electrical work consists of maintaining and repairing some 300 electrically driven motors. Major electrical repair work, such as the rewinding of motors, is sent out to independent contractors; the Employer finds it uneconomical to do this work in the plant. The electricians work with the usual tools of their craft, have separate work benches and lockers, and are regularly engaged in the performance of their craft duties. Douglas' wage rate is the highest in the plant, and Masek's rate is 20 cents an hour lower. It is contended by the Teamsters that other maintenance division employees do electrical work, and that therefore the unit sought by the IBEW is inappropriate because it does not include all employees in the plant doing electrical work. It is true that, on occasion, the electrical work is so heavy that there is need temporarily for the services of other employees. The primary work of such employees, however, is nonelectrical.7 It is further contended by the Teamsters that Douglas is a super- visor, and that the unit sought by the IBEW is inappropriate as it contains but one employee. Douglas is not listed in the supervisory hierarchy at the plant. He is an hourly paid worker who spends O John Morrell & Co., Inc., 86 NLRB 192; Matheson Chemical Corporation, 82 NLRB 250; Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 78 NLRB 478. 4 Although a former "A" electrician still performs some electrical work, he is now classified as a maintenance repair machine mechanic and spends the major part of his time in non- electrical work. 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD practically all his time doing the manual work connected with his craft. The record shows that Douglas devotes about an hour a day to planning the electrical work. Douglas is the most experienced electrician in the plant, and is chiefly relied upon by the Employer for the performance of the electrical work. As his relationship to the other employees who work with him is at most that of a skilled craftsman to his less experienced helper, we find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act." The electricians "A" and "B" here involved possess and exercise the skills traditionally associated with their craft. The Board has uni- formly held that such employees may, despite a history of bargain- ing on a broader basis, constitute a separate craft unit for collective bargaining purposes .9 We find that the boiler room employees and the electricians may each appropriately constitute a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall not, however, make any unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees in these groups as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed. We shall direct that the questions concerning representation shall be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among the employees in the main- tenance 'division of the St. Louis, Missouri, plant of the Employer within the voting groups described below : 1. All boiler room employees, including engineers, firemen, and coal passers, but excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. All electricians, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, elections 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 Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the voting groups described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were 8 See Home Stores, Incorporated, 87 NLRB 335 ; Rodgers-Wade Manufacturing Company, 69 NLRB 264. 8 Westclox Division, General Time Corporation, 87 NLRB 406 ; Calumet and Hecla Con- solidated Copper Company, et al., 86 NLRB 126; The Dayton Steel Foundry Company, 85 NLRB 1499; Indiana Limestone Company, Inc., 83 NLRB 1124 ; Phillips Chemical Com- pany, 83 NLRB 612. The Teamsters argued at the hearing that our decision in Rice-Stix Dry Goods Company, 78 NLRB 311, was a direct precedent against a craft finding for the electricians in this case. The electricians whom we refused to sever in the cited case did not possess and exercise the skills of persons trained in the electrical craft. CHASE CANDY COMPANY 31 employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work during said payroll 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 re- instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether : (1) The employees in voting group 1 desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by International Union of Op- erating Engineers, Locals Nos. 2, 2A, 2B, and 2C, AFL, or by Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 688, AFL, or by neither; (2) The employees in voting group 2 desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1, AFL, or by International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 688, AFL, or by neither.