Lone Star Boat Mfg. Co.

LONE STAR BOAT MFG. CO. 19 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] R. W. MCDONNELL AND E. M. BISHOP D/B/A LONE STAR BOAT MFG. Co.' and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & ^ AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-696. April 25, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. Carnie Russell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in -connection with this case to a three-- member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The parties are in general agreement as to the appropriateness, of a production and maintenance unit. However, the Petitioner would exclude from the unit the amproxi- mately 35 men on the night shift who are on active duty in the. United States Navy and stationed at the Grand Prairie Naval Base,. Texas. These men regularly work for the Employer from 6 to 7 hours per night on an average of 3 to 5 nights each week, and per- form the isame duties as employees who work full time. As our unit finding is based upon occupational categories, all employees working- at jobs within the unit are necessarily, with respect to such jobs, within the unit, irrespective of the number of hours of employment.2 Moreover, as these regular part-time employees perform work which- is the same as that performed by the full-time employees in the same- job classifications and are subject to substantially the same general working conditions as the other employees, we shall, in accordance ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. z JL C Penney Company, 86 NLRB 920. , 94 NLRB No. 13. 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the Board's practice, permit them to vote in the election directed herein.3 We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and main- tenance employees, including shipping, receiving, stock handling employees and janitors, but excluding office clerical, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer contends that an election should not be directed at this time because after May 31, 1951, it will be unable to secure raw materials required to manufacture its present product. How- ever, the record discloses that the Employer plans to continue oper- ating the business for at least 60 to 90 days after May 31, 1951, with a decreased complement of workers. The record further indicates the possibility that operations may be continued indefinitely if the Employer is able to switch to another product. Under these circum- stances, as the Employer is still operating its business, as a substan- tial working force will be employed for an indefinite time after May 31, 1951, and as the date when operations may cease is indefinite and unpredictable, we believe that the Act will best be effectuated by the direction of an election 4 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 3 H. E. Butt Grocery Co., 93 NLRB No. 88. 4 Charroin Manufacturing Co., 91 NLRB No. 49; Choctaw Cotton Oil Company, 84 NLRB 660; Blue Star Airlanes, Inc., 73 NLRB 663. LOUISVILLE TRANSIT Co. and LOUISVILLE TRANSIT EMPLOYEES UNION, DIVISION 1447, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIO RAILWAY & MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1007. April 25, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd R. Fraker, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board had delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1 The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on various grounds was referred to the Board. The motion is hereby denied for the reasons given in paragraphs 1, 3, .and 4 below. J4 NLRB No. 12.