Hall-Neal Furnace Co.

212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of reinstatement , less his net earnings during said period .16 Loss of pay is to be computed on the basis of each separate - calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from the Respondent 's discriminatory action to the date of an adequate offer of reinstatement . These quarterly periods are to begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting net earnings, if any, from a sum equal to that which each employee would normally have earned for each such quarter or portion thereof. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter" It will also be recommended that the Respondent , upon request, make available to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records perti- nent to an analysis of the amounts due as back pay. Because of the discrimi- natory charges found herein it will also be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act 18 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record I make the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Warehouse, Processing & Distribution Workers Union Local 26, Interna- tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of 'Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John McCormick, Robert Philipp, Joseph Prulitsky, John Corley, Jessie Wagner, Emmett Allen, Eugene Young, and Carl W. Raggio, Jr., the Respondent has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] 16 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440. 'IF. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. 18 May Department Stores, 326 U. S. 376. HALL-NEAL FURNACE COMPANY and SHEET METAL WORKERS INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-522. September 17,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan A. Bruckner, 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 has delegated its powers in conection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 96 NLRB No. 28. HALL-NEAL FURNACE COMPANY 213 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent' a unit of all regular employees engaged in the manufacture of the Employer's heating 'equipment, excluding outside employees, shipping employees, office clerical em- ployees, guards, and supervisors. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate because it does not include all produc- tion and maintenance employees, those working outside as well as in- side its manufacturing plant. The Employer, a manufacturer and installer of heating equipment, operates through six administrative departments as follows : Department A-Heavy metal Department B-Shipping Department C-Casing Department Dl-Furnace installation Department D2-Duct fabrication Department E-Oil burner, stoker, and automatic heating equip- ment installation Departments A, C, and D2 are devoted to fabrication, department B is a shipping department,. and departments D1 and E are engaged in the installation and servicing of equipment. The Petitioner desires to include in its unit only the employees in the three fabrication de- partments, A, C, and D2. All departments are located in two adjoining buildings. The em- ployees who service and install heating equipment work only in the Indianapolis area where the Employer's plant is located. They re- port for work to the plant or less frequently to the job installation site. Not all installation department employees work outside. For ex- ample, the stockmen, order filler, clerk, and dispatcher in the installa- tion departments work entirely inside the plant and the general main- tenance man does both outside and inside maintenance work. The shipping department employees also work inside the plant. Job classifications'in the fabrication departments are varied. They include the following : Unskilled helpers, painters, machine operators, group 4 and 5 mechanics, a master mechanic, sheet metal workers, packers, and welders. Several of these job classifications are also 974176-52-vol. 96-15 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD found in the installation departments, including unskilled helpers and group 4 and 5 mechanics. The mechanics in the fabrication departments and the mechanics in the installation departments are essentially sheet metal workers with similar skills. There is a fair amount of transfer of employees be- tween inside and outside jobs. Employee benefits are the same for all employees whether they work in the fabrication or the installation de- partments. There has been no history of collective bargaining. The proposed unit is not a craft unit. It does not include all em- ployees having similar skills. Nor is it the kind of multidepartment unit which the Board has sometimes held to be appropriate. The Petitioner urges, however, in support of its unit position, that the employees in the fabrication departments of their own initiative requested the Petitioner to file the present petition. This is in sub- stance an argument that the proposed unit be found appropriate on the controlling basis of extent of organization, which is forbidden by Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act.' We find that the proposed unit is not appropriate. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Section 9 (c) (5) provides : In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in sub- section (b) the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling. THE WELCH GRAPE JUICE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER . Case No . 6-RU-737. September 17, 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 William A. McGowan, 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 has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber 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. 96 NLRB No. 26.