Weber Showcase & Fixture Co., Inc.

358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WEBER SHOWCASE & FIXTURE CO., INC., AIRCRAFT DIVISION and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 01- RC-1663. September 24, 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 Irving Helbling, hearing offi- cer. 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 : 2 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved 3 claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer' 3. The AFL Intervenors, the Employer, and the Refrigeration Manufacturers' Association of Southern California, an intervenor herein called the Association, all contend that a contract among those parties bars consideration of the instant petition. The same parties also contend that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the UAW-CIO by its actions in organizing employees in the unit I During the hearing on this case , the Board denied a motion on behalf of the AFL Inter- venors to disqualify the hearing officer on grounds of prejudice and bias. At the end of the hearing, the motion was renewed . The Board has carefully examined the record herein including the transcript of testimony at the hearing and finds no merit in the Intervenors' contention . The record shows that the Intervenors were in no manner improperly limited or restricted in the presentation of evidence or in the examination of the pertinent issues. The Board finds that the hearing was conducted in conformity with the provisions of Sec- tion 9 of the Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Board. 2 The request of the AFL Intervenors and the Employer for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record and the briefs submitted by all parties to the Case, in our opinion, adequately and fully present the issues and positions of the parties. 8 The Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council , AFL ; Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters , AFL ; Local Union No. 371 , Sheet Metal Workers Inter- national Association, AFL ; Millmen and Cabinet Makers Local Union No. 721, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL ; and Local Union No. 792, Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, AFL, herein collec- tively referred to as the AFL Intervenors , were granted permission to intervene at the hear- ing upon the showing of a contractual interest . Local Union No. 196, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, ap- peared at the hearing but did not intervene in view of the Petitioner's exclusion of em- ployees under Local 196's jurisdiction from the unit requested. 4 The AFL Intervenors challenge the sufficiency of the UAW-CIO's showing of interest on the ground that the evidence submitted to the administrative offices of the Board did not show that the employees had actually designated the UAW-CIO as their bargaining repre- sentative. The Employer also requested that the Board indicate whether a strike of em- ployees constitutes a sufficient showing of interest . We find no merit in the contention of the AFL Intervenors nor do we find it necessary to rule upon the issue raised by the Employer. It is well settled that the showing of interest of petitioners is an administra- tive matter not litigable by the parties. See Grocers' Biscuit Company, Inc, 85 NLRB 603 and cases cited therein . The UAW-CIO has administratively satisfied the Board that it has a sufficient showing of interest among these employees. 96 NLRB No. 40. _WEBER SHOWCASE & FIXTURE CO., INC. 359 ' requested either waived or forfeited any right to use of' Board processes. The employees whose representation is sought by the UAW-CIO in the instant petition are currently covered by the terms of a multiem- ployer contract-to which the Employer is signatory-between the Association and the AFL Intervenors .5 The expiration date of the previous contract between these parties was November 1, 1950. On July 1, 1950, the contract was opened and negotiations for a new agreement started. Shortly thereafter the employees at plant 5 6 made several demands upon the Employer for changes in the expiring agreement. Dissatisfaction over the progress of the negotiations finally culminated in the sending of an ultimatum by these employees to the Employer asking for immediate answers to their proposals. This ultimatum was rejected by the Employer and a strike subsequently started on October 5, 1950. Shortly after the October 5 strike commenced, the UAW-CIO ap- peared on the scene, apparently upon invitation of the strikers, and obtained designation cards from a majority of the workers at plant 5. The strike itself was settled on the same day it began after assurances were given by the Employer's president that a consent election could be held to decide whether plant 5 would have separate representation. A petition for a unit restricted to plant 5 was filed on October 5 by the UAW-CIO but that union did not participate in the settlement of the strike.7 Thereafter, a wage increase proposal for plant 5 made by the Employer to the AFL Intervenors was rejected by the employees at that plant. On October 12 another short strike occurred over the reported discharge of an employee'under the union-security provision of the expiring contract. On October 19, a consent election agreement was signed by the Employer, the UAW-CIO, and by a representative of Sheet Metal Local 371, the agreed unit being restricted to plant 5 production and maintenance employees. Seven days later each of the AFL Intervenors repudiated the signature of the Local 371 representa- tive and approval of the consent election was withdrawn by the Re- gional Director. At that time the employees at plant 5 learned of the collapse of the consent election agreement and announced a refusal to work overtime from that date until November 1, when the master contract expired. The Employer requested overtime from several employees who refused and were discharged. On October 27 all em- ployees at the plant refused to work unless the dischargees were 5 Most of the operations of the employees in the requested unit are under the jurisdiction of Sheet Metal Local 371 , although the Teamsters , Painters, and Carpenters all have a small number of members in the plant. 6 The Employer's aircraft division, which constitutes the requested unit, is located in plant 5 and is referred to herein by that designation. ° Case No. 21-RC-1596. 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rehired. This the Employer refused to do; the employees thereupon went on strike and were discharged in a body. On this same day the UAW-CIO filed charges against the Employer alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) .8 On November 1, 1950, the contract expired and the UAW-CIO made an oral claim for recognition as representative of plant 5 which was rejected by the Employer. At the same time the UAW-CIO withdrew its previous petition for certification and filed a charge alleging refusal to bargain under Section 8 (a) (5). For the next 2 weeks the UAW- ,CIO and the Employer conferred in an attempt to reach a strike settle- ment, and on or about November 13, the strike ended and the employees returned to work. The settlement reached provided for rehire or rein- statement of the striking employees, withdrawal of the charges filed against the Employer, and nonrecognition by the Employer of any union as representative of plant 5 until the matter had been determined by the Board. On November 14, the UAW-CIO withdrew its charges and filed the instant petition. In the meantime, the AFL Intervenors and the Association had con- tinued negotiations.9 On November 13, 14, and 15, the executive secre- tary of the Association and the business representative of the Building and Construction Trades Council exchanged letters detailing the changes in the 1949-50 contract which had been agreed upon by, the negotiating committee.10 On November 16, the AFL Intervenors placed a picket line around the Employer plants in protest of the strike settlement agreement providing for nonrecognition of any union. On November 17, the Employer reversed its position as to nonrecognition of either union and withdrew from the strike settlement agreement. On November 21 the members of the Association, including the Em- ployer, signed a "Resolution to Continue" the previous contract with the AFL Intervenors with certain specified changes. On November 22, this agreement was signed by the participating unions. On the issue of contract bar the Employer, the Association, and the AFL Intervenors contend that the exchange of "letters of agreement" on November 13, 14, and 15 was equivalent to the execution of a formal written contract before the filing of the instant petition. As noted 8 Case No. 21-CA-938. Until November 2, 1950, these negotiations had specifically excluded plant S from their scope because of the pendency of the first UAW-CIO petition. 10 Apparently these changes had been agreed upon by the members of the negotiating committees as of November 6 but were not drafted immediately. A letter incorporating and stating the changes in the previous contract was sent by the Association to the Trades Council on the 13th and signed by the latter on the 14th . A second letter supplying several other points of agreement was sent by the Association on the 14th and apparently was signed by the Trades Council on the 15th. WEER SHOWCASE & FIXTURE CO., INC. 361 above, however, the contract, while agreed upon by the negotiating committees on November 6, was not put into written form until the period between November 13 and 15 and was not signed in its final form by the Employer until November 21. The petition was filed on November 14. The Board has frequently and consistently held that, not only is an unwritten agreement insufficient to bar a petition, but one which is not signed by the contracting parties before the filing of the petition is not competent as a bar11 In this instance, the nego- tiating agents arrived at an agreement prior to or contemporaneously with the filing of the petition but the contract itself was not accepted by the parties until almost a week thereafter. Accordingly, the Board finds that neither the "letters of agreement" nor the resulting contract signed on November 21 bars consideration of the instant petition. In support of their contention that the UAW-CIO either waived or forfeited its right to use of Board processes, the Employer, the Asso- ciation, and the AFL Intervenors argue, in particular, that the UAW- CIO deliberately abused and abandoned Board processes by withdraw- ing its first petition and resorting to strike action. The separate con- curring opinions of Chairman Herzog and Member Reynolds in the National Silver case 12 are cited as authority for the position that a union which resorts to economic coercion to secure recognition should be denied simultaneous or subsequent use of Board machinery for es- tablishing recognition. In the National Silver case, Chairman Herzog and Member Reynolds indicated disapproval, on policy grounds, of the holding of an election for the selection of a bargaining representative at a time wihen a strike by one of the claimant unions was in progress. It is patent, accordingly, that the situation present in the National Silver decision does not exist in the instant case. The strike sponsored b ythe UAW-CIO was terminated well before the petition in this case was filed. We find nothing in the record to show an abuse or disre- 11 See Seller Sugar Company, Inc., 85 NLRB 755; Roddms Plywood d Door Company, Inc., 84 NLRB 309; Sprague Electric Company, 81 NLRB 410; Eicor, Inc., 46 NLRB 1035; see also Peter Pirsch and Sons Company, 90 NLRB No 253; Herrall-Owens Co., 92 NLRB 160. The Employer, the Association , and the AFL Intervenors rely upon the Board's decision in The Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91, in which it was held that a memo- randum of agreement containing a statement of all matters in dispute and providing for the later execution of a formal contract could bar a petition. The Carborundum case, however, is clearly distinguishable from the instant situation In that case, the employer and the union exchanged the memorandum and would have been the parties signing the ensuing contract. The "letters of agreement" exchanged between the Association and the Trades Council , on the contrary, could not be binding upon the contracting parties until accepted individually by the various Employers and Unions concerned . It is clear that the Association acts only as a negotiating agency for the Employers and its authority is limited to that phase of the proceedings. The contract itself reads "by and between the Refrigeration Manufacturers Association of Southern California in behalf of its members who are signatory hereto . . ." and the unions. "National Silver Company, 71 NLRB 594. 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD gard of Board rules or the Act by the UAW-CIO which would mili- tate against the use of the processes established by the statute.13 On the entire record the Board finds that a question affecting com- merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The UAW-CIO requests that the Board find appropriate a unit restricted to all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's plant 5, excluding all truck drivers, car lift operators, ware- housemen, craters, stock clerks, office employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer, the Association, and the AFL. Intervenors oppose the unit request on the grounds that the employees involved are part of a multiemployer unit from which they should not be severed. - The Employer is a Los Angeles manufacturer dealing primarily in -refrigeration equipment. At present the Employer operates two, plants, both in the Los Angeles area, designated as plants 1 and 5. Plant 5, the employees of which are the subject of this petition, is engaged in the manufacture of interior aircraft fittings such as seats, buffets, galleys, and various types of water tanks. Plant 1, with the exception of one department, is devoted entirely to the production of refrigeration equipment, store fixtures, and related products. Depart- ment 107 at plant 1, however, manufactures special contract work con- sisting of portable and fixed base radar housings. Prior to World War II, the Employer's business was confined to the fabrication of custom-made refrigeration equipment and fixtures re- quiring the work of highly skilled craftsmen and consisting largely of individual items made to order rather than assembly-line products. During the course of the war, this type production was discontinued and replaced, for the most part, by war production chiefly in-the field of aircraft subcontracts. At the close of the war, the Employer re- tained a portion of this aircraft work but also reactivated its refrigera- tion and fixture business. For a short period, a number of additional plants for the production of refrigeration and fixture equipment were 18 The same parties contend that the UAW-CIO fomented dissatisfaction and discord at plant 5 for the purpose of coercing the Employer to grant recognition without recourse- to the Board . We find no merit in this position . While the UAW-CIO gave limited assistance to the strikers on various occasions during the early walkouts and the strike of October 27 it was not until November 1 that the UAW-CIO took formal charge of the strike then existing . The record contains no substantial evidence that the UAW-CIO, was responsible for the previous work stoppages or that the organization of the employees took unlawful channels . On the contrary it appears that the petitioning union was willing to accept the results of the consent election temporarily scheduled on Its first petition . It Is also asserted that the dissatisfaction and unrest on the part of plant employees was artificially conceived and nurtured in order to create a favorable record on which to request a separate unit finding from the Board . Not only is this assertion Inconsistent with the argument that the UAW-CIO abandoned Board procedures, but it is also without factual basis in the record WEBER SHOWCASE & FIXTURE CO., INC. 363 operated as well as the main plant now known as plant 1. Instead of manufacturing the individualized type product formerly produced, however, the Employer turned to standard items requiring less fabri- cation skills and allowing for some assembly-line operations. During this period of expansion, aircraft production was relegated to a build- ing which is a part of plant 1. In 1946, the Employer closed the ma- jority of its plants, concentrated its refrigeration and fixture work at plant 1, and moved the aircraft section to its present location at plant 514 Plants 1 and 5 are approximately a mile and a half apart. The Employer has about 1,175 employees of whom approximately 250 work at plant 5. Each plant has a manager who reports to the executive vice president or the president of the firm, and acts as general super- visor of the plant. While payroll and personnel records are kept at plant 1 for both locations, in actual operation plant 5 does its own hiring, discharging, and selection of personnel for layoffs, and em- ployees at plant 5 have separate time clocks and cards. In the same manner, while only plant 1 has a purchasing director, purchasing for plant 5 is done separately with little active supervision from that director. The manager of industrial relations is also located at plant 1 and has general supervision in that field over both plants. However, on instances and occasions bearing directly on the present petition, labor relations and negotiations for plant 5 personnel were specifically severed from his office and placed under the supervision of the manager of plant 5. There is some conflict in the record as to the interchange of work and employees between the 2 plants. It appears that there is virtually no permanent interchange of employees but that, on some occasions, when work for one plant is being done at the other location, employees from the first plant will accompany the work temporarily to advise on the job. Thus there is some interchange of work between plant 1 and plant 5, despite the general, over-all difference in products. Most of this interchange occurs when specific machinery is available at one plant and not at the other.'-' At the time plant 5 first commenced operations, production was divided between two types of products. The first of these wag aircraft interior equipment designed by the Employer who owns engineering and tooling rights to the items. The second type product was air- frame parts which were manufactured mainly on subcontracts from 14 Plant 2 , located in El Paso, and plants 3 and 4 , located in Los Angeles . were closed at that time. The Employer states that it intends to move the aircraft division back to the main plant at some time in the future and notes that its present lease of the building comprising plant 5 expires July 1 of this year. The Employer refused to state, however, that the plant would be moved back at that time. 15 This most frequently occurs in the case of etching , which is done entirely at plant 5 ; wooden cabinet or seat work , which is done at plant 1 ; and with respect to one large press located at plant 1 In no instance does it appear that the product of either plant is: ever totally assembled or fabricated at the other factory. 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD major manufacturers in that field. Since that time, the Employer has tended to concentrate on the aircraft equipment business although some airframe subcontracts work is still being done.16 In the manu- facture of some of the products at plant 5, aircraft stress and strain specifications must be met. The engineering department at that plant .takes the initial requirements of the customer and draws blueprints, which, after approval by the customer, are used for production of the item. In other cases, the same department originates designs for air- craft equipment. Plant 5 employees have a separate set of job classi- fications patterned after those existing in the aircraft industry of Southern California. It is clear that the employees at that plant have consistently considered themselves and their work a part of the air- craft industry with interests and duties separate and distinct from those existing in the refrigeration manufacturing field.17 Prior to World War II, the Employer, acting in informal concert with other employers in the refrigeration industry, bargained more or less consistently with the AFL Intervenors for employees in its plants. The contracts which resulted were, generally for journeymen and ap- prentices in the crafts represented but made provision, in some in- stances, for production workers not at the journeyman craft level. During the war, when the Employer converted its production to air- craft work, by direction of the War Labor Board, it still bargained with the AFL Intervenors. At the conclusion of the war and upon the Employer's resumption of the manufacture of refrigeration equip- ment and fixtures, industry-wide bargaining was established and has existed to the present time .18 A contract was negotiated in 1946, for a period of 1 year between the majority of employers in the industry and the AFL Intervenors which provided, in substance, for an indus- try-wide unit and the establishment of standard job classifications and rates for the industry. In 1946 the Association, as it now exists, was created. Since that time, it has negotiated successive contracts with the AFL Intervenors. 16 The Employer also manufactures food handling boxes for the Air Forces and does certain unspecified work for the Atomic Energy Commission at plant 5. In the past, when work has been slack at this plant , a limited number of experimental coin machines, dis- pensing machines, and radio cabinets have also been produced at this location. 11 This belief was one of the major sources of dissatisfaction with the current representa- tive at the time of the walkouts and was at least partially responsible for the adoption of the separate job classifications. is Before 1946 negotiations were conducted for the employers by a group called the Refrigeration Manufacturers Association ( RMA). At the end of the war, the AFL Inter- venors had requested the Employer to return to journeyman and apprentice classifications which had been superseded by the less skilled production classifications. The RMA was created to persuade the unions to negotiate jointly with the group as an industry and was successful in negotiating a contract in 1945, for 1 year, which provided for a joint job evaluation scheme to settle the dispute as to the establishment of craft classifications rather than production classifications. This 1945 master agreement was separately executed by each employer, but was signed by the AFL Intervenors jointly. WEBER SHOWCASE & FIXTURE CO., INC. 365 At the present time, the 10 members of the Association employ approximately 1,900 of the estimated 2,500 employees in the refrigera- tion industry 19 While at all times the Association has represented the majority of the employers and employees in the industry, the mem- bership has varied considerably throughout its existence.20 The Asso- ciation itself does not have authority to bind its membership to con- tracts with the participating unions but, with a few minor exceptions, has authority to negotiate contracts for its membership.21 Normally bargaining is conducted by a committee on behalf of the Association and one selected by the AFL Intervenors. Specific problems are re= ferred to subcommittees which usually consist of the union and em- ployer affected. The resulting contract draft of the "Master Refrigeration Agreement" is referred to the unions and the employers for their signatures. The contracts negotiated between the Association and the AFL In- tervenors, however, do not cover all the employees of this Employer or of other employers in the industry-wide unit. The Association has also dealt separately with the International Association of Machinists and has attempted, without success, to negotiate an industry-wide agreement with that union.22 Other unions and classifications of em- ployees have been given separate contracts under certain conditions by the Association, and by the Employer. Besides the "Master Refrigeration Agreement" with the AFL In- tervenors, the Employer executes a "Special Fixtures Agreement" covering employees engaged in specialized and highly skilled cabinet- making operations.- In some instances this agreement covers em- ployees at the Employer's plants who are also covered by the "Master f 19 The membership, as of the signing of the last contract , consisted of the following irms : Goldew Manufacturing Company ; C . W. Refrigerator & Manufacturing Co ; Modern Refrigerator Works ; Peterson Showcase & Fixture Company ; Refrigeration Engineering, Inc ; Refrigerator Manufacturers , Inc. ; Super Cold Corporation ; Vering Manufacturing Company ; Ward Refrigerator & Manufacturing Co ; Weber Showcase & Fixture Co , Inc 20 Several employers left the Association by reason of changes in business operations, doubts as to the majority status of the representing unions , jurisdictional disputes, and other unstated reasons. See, for example, Anderson-Wagner, Inc., 94 NLRB 291. Eight employers in all have at one time belonged to the Association and later resigned. At least one of these employers now bargains with a local of the Plumbers Union, AFL, and another's employees are now represented separately by a local of the Teamsters, AFL 21 The constitution and bylaws of the Association do not spell out the Association's authority in detail. There seems to be no question , however, that the authority is limited to negotiation and that the members are not bound by the proposed contract until it is signed by the individual employer. In at least one instance, an employer remained a member without signing the recommended contract. 22 The reason ascribed for the failure to secure an industry -wide agreement is the small number of machinists employed in the industry . Because of this failure, a number of individual members of the Association bargained with the IAM separately. The Super Cold Corporation , for example, has a contract with the IAM as representative of employees in one of its plants. Two other employer -members of the Association contract with the IAM for their tool and die departments on a single -employer basis. 28 This agreement is negotiated by an informal association of essentially the same em- ployers as are members of the Association . The informal group is known as the Cabinet Makers Institute. 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Refrigeration Agreement." The Employer further contracts with Local 108 of the Sheet Metal Workers Association of America for one department in plant 1.24 Both these contracts are on a multiemployer unit basis. The International Association of Machinists has repre- sented the Employer's tool and die makers and machinists in a single- employer unit ;25 and other departments at both plants of the Employer are not represented by any union. Until 1949, the employees in the unit requested by the UAW-CIO had been included without differentiation in the coverage of the "Master Refrigeration Agreement." In the middle of that year, nego- tiations were started for revision of the agreement expiring in the fall. In the course of these negotiations, dissatisfaction on the part of the employees at plant 5 culminated in a petition requesting a sep- arate contract for that group. The master contract between the Association and the AFL Intervenors was thereafter signed on November 1, 1949, but an addendum was added on December 10 which set forth separate wage rates and job classifications for the employees at plant 5. These job classifications, as noted previously, were modeled upon those established by the Southern California Aircraft Industry. The addendum was applicable to plant 5 employees only, at that time, and was signed by the Association and the Employer on the one hand and the Building Trades Council and Local 371 of the Sheet Metal Workers on the other.26 In support of its request for a unit restricted to employees at the Employer's plant 5, the UAW-CIO alleges that the work done in plant 5 differs from that of the Employer's other plant and the re- mainder of the multiemployer unit both as to industry and type ; that the separate work and interests of plant 5 employees have been recog- nized by the Employer and the AFL Intervenors in past contracts.; that the appropriateness of the unit was at least temporarily recog- nized by all parties at the time the consent election agreement was signed; that the multiemployer unit has not established peaceful and 24 This agreement is also negotiated on a multiemployer basis by the Sheet Metal Con- tractors Association . The union representing these employees is a sister local to Local 371 which is one of the' AFL Intervenors and a party to the "Master Refrigeration Contract " 25 The TAM was certified as representative of tool and die makers and nrachinists at the Employer 's plant 1 in 1946 . See Weber Showcase & Fixture Co ., Inc , 67 NLRB 456. The TAM was recertified in 1948 by a consent election In 1949, however , the TAM was deccLti- fled as representative of the same unit at plant 1. See Weber Showcase & Fixture Co. Inc., 85 NLRB 1202. At the same time, a petition by the IAM for a unit of machinists, tool and fixture builders at plant 5 was dismissed by the Board on the strength of the Em- ployer's statement that plant 5 was to be abandoned within 60 days. 25 The master contract is normally signed by all participating employers and unions, and the restricted signing here was apparently due to the fact that the addendum applied only to plant 5 of the Employer. It is contended that an agreement was made that the addendum would be applicable to all operations of any employer in the Association in the future which were comparable to plant 5. The only extension of the coverage of the addendum was to the operations in the Employer's own department 107 ib plant 1, however. WEBER SHOWCASE & FIXTURE CO.,' INC. 367 stable bargaining relationships at plant 5 but has resulted in opposite conditions ; and that the existing multiemployer unit does not conform to Board standards but is a patternless and partial coverage of em- ployees within its scope. The Employer, the Association, and the AFL Intervenors all oppose the unit request on the ground that the history of successful multiemployer bargaining makes severance of one plant of one employer undesirable and in conflict with Board precedent. The record shows conclusively that, absent any history of bargain- ing on a broader basis, the employees at plant 5 would constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.27 However, the existence, of a multiemployer unit embracing these employees witli other plants and other employers cannot be disputed. The Board gives great weight to bargaining patterns and, where a bargaining history has established a multiemployer unit, generally holds that further organization of employees therein must conform to the broad unit 28 While we reaffirm the rules the Board has established in this particular area, we are not convinced that the multiemployer bargaining as revealed by this particular record warrants denial of separate repre- sentation to the employees of plant 5. The Board, on the entire record, considers that the unique factual background of this petition requires a finding that the requested unit is appropriate. It is undisputed that the employees at the Employer's plant 5 are engaged in production of items for a specialized market in the avia- tion industry. The remainder of the broader unit manufactures prod- ucts designed for a different class of purchasers in a distinct and separate industry. It seems clear, therefore, that while the individual processes and duties of employees at plant 5 may be reduced, in many cases, to routines which are similar to those performed in other plants, the conditions of employment of the personnel at plant 5 are subject to factors and conditions which vary markedly from those affecting the remainder of the existing unit. It seems patent that the size of the work force at plant 5, the job tenure of the employees thereat, and the 27 The Employer further contends , inter aha, that a unit limited to plant 5 is inappro- priate with respect to the operations of this Employer even apart from the multiple- employer bargaining background . The Board finds no merit in this contention . The record shows that plant 5 is a distinct and separate operation which, although organizationally joined with plant 1, has considerable autonomy in matters affecting the duties and v-orking conditions of the employees In this respect, it is noted that , in the period Immediately preceding the filing of this petition , the conduct of labor relations affecting the employees at plant 5 was removed from the jurisdiction of the central office at plant 1 and delegated to the plant manager at plant 5 Moreover, the lack of any substantial interchange between the plants, the geographical separation , and the separate interests engendered by the variance in products between the plants, as well as other factors, favor a unit limited to plant 5. 28 "If a union seeks to sever a classification of employees from a multiple employer unit, it must do so in a unit coextensive with the existing unit." Bryant's Marina, Inc., et al, 92 NLRB 718. See also T. C. King Pipe Company et al, 74 NLRB 468; Stanford Wall Paper, Inc., 92 NLRB 1173. Epp Furniture Company, et al., 86 NLRB 120 ; Columbia Pictures Corporation, 84 NLRB 649 368 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD general terms and conditions of their employment are matters which are much more directly related to economic conditions in the aircraft industry than they are to those of the refrigeration industry. It is important to note, further, that this differentiation of working condi- tions, if not skills, has been accepted and acknowledged by the Em- ployer and the AFL Intervenors, for, through the contract addendum of 1949, the employees at plant 5 have been awarded special and sepa- rate job classifications and rates. It is also noteworthy that, despite the later withdrawal of the AFL Intervenors, at one time all partici- pating parties appeared to recognize the appropriateness of plant 5 as a separate unit and were willing to hold an election in that restricted group. The Employer, indeed, had indicated such a position on several occasions during the period preceding the filing. of this petition. ' There are other facts which also indicate the merit of granting a separate unit to the employees at plant 5. It is obvious from the record that the multiemployer unit now covering those employees has not succeeded in establishing stable and peaceful bargaining relation- ships. The employees at plant 5 have clearly and unmistakably indi- cated their dissatisfaction with their inclusion in the broader unit for an extended period of time. The instant record, moreover, does not support the contention of the Employer and the AFL Intervenors that a comprehensive and consistent pattern of multiemployer bargaining would be breached through granting the UAW-CIO petition by the severance of only a portion of those employees in a broad unit having similar work and interests. The history of bargaining herein does not show a policy of exclusion of all types of bargaining except that based upon a multiemployer grouping, nor is the personnel at plant 5 indistinguishable as to fundamental interests and conditions of em- ployment from the remainder of the unit which at present encom- passes them. The employer-members of the Association including this Employer have, on occasion, bargained separately as to certain employees and certain units. Moreover, no less than three multiem- ployer units exist for the representation of the employees and, in at least one instance, the contracts for these units overlap in their coverage. None of the foregoing aspects of the instant factual situation might individually and in isolation from the general circumstances be grounds for deviation from the Board's general policy of denying severance of constituent plants or employees from multiemployer units. These factors in concert, however, and restricted to the spe- cific facts presented herein, comprise a situation where the particular bargaining history here presented- cannot be held to militate against the appropriateness of a unit limited to the employees at plant 5. ALLIED MILLS, INC. 369 Accordingly, the Board will direct an election for the employees at that location a9 Upon the entire record the Board finds that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant 5, excluding truck drivers, car lift operators, warehousemen, craters, stock clerks, time- keepers, production planners, material planners and schedulers, office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, foremen, and all super- visors as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.3° [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 29 See, for example, C. I. Brink, Incorporated, 57 NLRB 477, in which the Board held that where an employer converted in part, for defense purposes , from its standard busi- ness to a new product, employees engaged in the latter work could comprise a separate single-employer unit despite a history of multiemployer bargaining for the plant. See also Demuth Glass Works, Inc., 53 NLRB 451. Moreover, the Board has consistently held that where a classification or craft group of employees exists only at one employer's plant, single-plant bargaining is appropriate as to those employees although the remainder of employer 's personnel may be within a multiemployer bargaining group. See Members of the California State Brewers Institute , Southern Division, 90 NLRB 1747 ; Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 94 NLRB 477. 89 The parties agreed that timekeepers , production planners , material planners and schedulers should be excluded from the unit . As the record shows these employees do not share common working conditions and interests with the remainder of the plant force, the Board concurs in this agreement . The parties agreed, and we find, that the Employer 's watchmen are guards within the meaning of the Act and should be excluded. The UAW-CIO wished to exclude, and-the AFL Intervenors wished to include , foremen in the unit. As the record shows that all foremen at the plant have authority effectively to recommend with respect to hiring , suspension , layoff, recall , promotion, and discharge of employees under their supervision , we find that the foremen are supervisors as defined in the Act, and exclude them from the unit. ALLIED MILLS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, TRUCK DRIVERS & HELPERS UNION, LOCAL No. 784, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-1073. September 94,1951 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 Eugene Hoffman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 96 NLRB No. 54.