United States Rubber Co.

564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Recommendation Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the complaint against F. Burkart Manufacturing Company be dismissed in its entirety. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 113, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 13-RC- 1921,13-EC-1922, and 13-RC-1961. September 28, 1951 Decision, Order, 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 M. Friedman, 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- 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. 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, in Case No. 13-RC- 1921. No question affecting commerce exists in Case No. 13-RC-1922. 4. In Case No. 13-RC-1921, Petitioner seeks to sever from a pro- duction and maintenance unit at the Employer's Fort Wayne, Indiana, I At the outset of the hearing , petitioner, IAM, moved to withdraw Its petition in Case No. 13-RC-1961 , which sought a unit of precision metal inspectors , gage checkers and lead man , and in the absence of any objections , the hearing officer granted the motion. Section 102 .52 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations, as amended March 1, 1951 , vests in the Regional Director or in the Board , and not in the hearing officer, the power to permit the withdrawal of a petition . None of the parties herein , however, objected to the request by the IAM to withdraw its petition and no evidence was taken in regard to that petition. We therefore find that the withdrawal of the petition in Case No. 13-RC-1961 will not prejudice any of the parties herein . Accordingly, the motion of the IAM to withdraw its petition in Case No . 13-RC-1961 is hereby granted, and Case No. 13 -RC-1961 is hereby ordered severed from Cases Nos. 13-RC-1921 and 13-RC-1922 in which the IA:II also appears as Petitioner. W. J. Smith Wood Preserving Company, 80 NLRB 824. 96 NLRB No. 78. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 565 plant, a group of carpenters, their helpers, and apprentices. The Employer takes no position. The Intervenor, United Rubber Work- ers, who represents the broader unit, objects on the ground- that the carpenters do a certain amount of production work. We find no merit in this contention. The Board has held that the fact that members of a craft group are engaged in performing some production work does not justify excluding them from a craft unit.2 As_ it. appears that the carpenters are craft maintenance employees to whom the Board customarily accords separate representation, we find that they may constitute a separate appropriate unit, notwithstanding their prior inclusion in an over-all unit of production and maintenance employees.8 We shall direct an election among the following group of employees at the Employer's Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant : All carpenters, their helpers and apprentices, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, supervisors, and all other employees of the Employer. However, we shall make no final unit determina- tion at this time as to this group 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 Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. In Case No. 13-RC-1922, the Petitioner, IAM, seeks to sever from the production and maintenance unit a group of air-conditioning,em- ployees engaged in operating and maintaining the air-conditioning equipment of the plant. These employees work on the roof of the building, where they also keep their tools and have their headquarters. Their duties consist of cleaning and maintaining fans and filters, tight- ening belts, and repairing and maintaining the controls of the air- conditioning equipment. Major jobs are performed by electricians, millwrights, or steam fitters. They are considered part of the main- tenance department and are under the supervision of the power plant engineer. There is no special training or apprenticeship program for these employees and most of them have gained their experience on the job. The Board has held that air-conditioning employees are not suffi- ciently skilled to form a craft, and we ordinarily refuse to sever them from a broader production and maintenance unit .4 Although at the hearing the Intervenor, the representative for the broader unit, dis- claimed any "definite" interest in the air-conditioning employees, it apparently opposed their severance and indicated no unwillingness to continue to represent them as part of the broader unit. We are of the opinion that, under these circumstances, there is no justification s Saco-Lowell Shops, 94 NLRB 647. United States Rubber Company, 91 NLRB No. 213. * Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, 91 NLRB 1145. 974176-52-vol. 96-37 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BbARD for granting the air-conditioning employees a separate bargaining unit, and we shall accordingly dismiss the petition as to these employees. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 13-RC-1922 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY APPLIANCE SERVICE CENTER and LOCAL 463, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No. 2-I?C-3346. September 28, 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 James V. Altieri, 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 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 claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Intervenors, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America and its Local 1227, hereinafter called respectively UE and Local 1227, assert that this local's certification by the Board on June 6, 1950, as the exclusive representative of those employees of the 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the motion of the Intervenor to dismiss the petition as defective because of the following facts. The name signed to the petition is Irving Abramson, who is attorney of record for the Petitioner. In fact, Abramson's name was written not by himself but by one of his office associates, who appended his own initials indicating that it was not the actual signature of Abramson. The Intervenors assert that the certification formula appearing at the end of the petition form calls for a declaration by the signatory of the truth of the facts contained in the petition, and that in the circumstances described the certification is false because not made by the person in whose name it was signed. We find no merit in this contention. The motion to dismiss on this ground is hereby denied. The hearing officer also referred to the Board two other motions for dismissal made by the Intervenors which are dealt with in the course of our decision. 2 The request of the Intervenors for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and briefs , in our opinion, adequately present the issues and position of the parties, 96 NLRB No. 77.