International Paper Co.

306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of bargaining on a more inclusive basis.21 The only basis for the re- quested unit appears to lie in the extent of organization. As we are precluded by the Act from giving controlling weight to this factor in any unit determination,22 we find that the unit petitioned for by the Operating Engineers is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,23 and shall dismiss its petition. • In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among the employees of the Employer at its Texas City, Texas, plant, in the voting groups set forth below, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act : (a) All electricians, apprentices, helpers, and leadmen; (b) all carpenters, apprentices, helpers, and leadmen; (c) all welders, ap- prentices, helpers, and leadmen; (d) all blacksmiths, including ap- prentices; (e) all tinsmiths and/or sheet metal workers. If a majority of the employees in any of these voting groups vote for the IBEW or Carpenters or Boilermakers or Sheet Metal Workers, in the voting groups where these labor organizations appear on the ballot, they will be taken tohave indicated their desire to constitute separate bargaining units. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 39-RC-316, by Local No. 347, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 21 See Central Cooperative Wholesale, 93 NLRB 1. 22 See Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act 21 See Alpine Metals Manufacturing Coinpaiy, 95 NLRB 1190; Silverwood's, 92 NLRB 949 INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY (SOUTHERN KRAFT DIVISION) and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, LOCAL 568, PETITIONER. Case No.15-RC 511. Sep= te?nber 21, 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 Andrew P. Carter, hearing `1'96 NLRB No 35. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 307 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-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 organizations involved claim 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 Petitioner contends that all pipefitters at the Employer's, Moss Point, Mississippi, plant, including pipefitters' leadmen, pipe- fitters' welders, and helpers regularly assigned to work with pipefit- ters, excluding all other employees and supervisors, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. Subject to their contentions with respect to the propriety of multiplant bargaining on a production and main- tenance basis for employees in the Employer's Southern Kraft Divi- sion, the Employer and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, A. F. L.; International Pulp, Sulphite, and Papermill Workers, A. F. L.; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., herein called the Joint Intervenors, do not object to the composition of the proposed unit.2 The parties agree that the operations of the Moss Point plant are closely similar to those at the Employer's Georgetown, Springhill, and Panama City plants also included in the Employer's Southern Kraft Division.3 There are, however, no pipefitter welders' helpers at the- Moss Point plant. The Employer lists at its Moss Point plant one welder leaclman, nine welders, and five welder helpers. Four welders are regularly assigned to work with pipefitters. The record does not specifically show that- ' Cases Nos 15-RC-501 and 15-RC-502 involving pipefitters at the Employer's Spring- hill, Louisiana, and Panama City, Florida,' plants of the Employer's Southern Kraft Division were consolidated with the instant case for the purpose of hearing. Because it appears that the issues raised in Cases Nos 155-RC-501 and 15-RC-502 were resolved- In the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections issued on July 12, 1950', in• Cases Nos 15-RC-443, 473, and 475 (95 NLRB 155) and the Supplemental Decision in these cases issued this day, the petitions in Cases Nos 1: -RC-501 and 15-RC-502 are hereby severed trom the instant petition and dismissed. 2 The past bargaining history between the Employer and the Joint Intervenors and certain craft unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, relating to employees In the Employer's Southern Kraft Division , is set forth in the Board's decision respecting em- ployees at the Georgetown plant. International Paper Company ( Southern Kraft Divi- sion ), 94 NLRB 483. a International Paper Company (Southern Kraft Dezwsion), supra, International Paper Company (Southern Kraft Division), 95 NLRB 155 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all other welders at the plant are regularly assigned to work with other skilled craft groups. Under these circumstances, and for the reasons stated in the Supplemental Decision and Order in 96 NLRB 295, issued this day, we shall exclude welders from the proposed craft unit for pipefitters. The following employees may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All pipefitters at the Employer's Moss Point, Mississippi, plant, including helpers regularly assigned to work with pipefitters and the. pipefitter's leadman, but excluding, all welders and supervisors. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Peti- tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MEMBER HOUSTON, dissenting in part : For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the cases involv- ing the Camden, Arkansas, Springfield, Louisiana, and Panama City, Florida, plants of this Employer,4 I disagree with the unit finding of my, colleagues insofar as it excludes welders regularly assigned to the pipefitters from the pipefitters' unit. I would include them for the reason that they spend more than 50 percent of their time serving the pipefitters. Apart from the foregoing, I note that, in applying to the instant case the rationale of their Supplemental Decision affecting the above three plants, my colleagues of the majority assume that five of the nine welders involved are not regularly assigned to craftsmen merely because of an absence of evidence on this issue. I regard this as an extension of the holding in the other cases and as an additional indica- tion of the tenuous nature of the majority's approach to the unit place- ment of welders. 4 96 NLRB 295.