Hollingsworth & Whitney Co.

HOLLINGSWORTH & WHITNEY CO. 599 leged illegality of such practice apart from the contract is not litigable in 'a representation proceeding.6 As the union-security clause in the existing contract was effectively suspended,7 we find that this contract is a bar to a determination of representatives at this time. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the peti- tion filed herein. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 6 Pacific Metals Co., Ltd., et al., 91 NLRB 696. 7In view of our determination that the union security clause was effectively suspended, we do not pass upon the validity of that clause. HOLLINGSWORTH & WHITNEY Co. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-2113. December 19, 1951 Supplemental Decision and Second Direction of Election On duly 13,1951, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-captioned proceeding, wherein a specified voting group was established. Thereafter, the Board granted the motion of the Regional Director of the First Region to remand the case for further hearing regarding the voting eligibility of certain employees. Pursuant to the order, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the second hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The voting group, as described in the original' decision, includes all electricians at the Employer's Winslow and Madison, Maine, plants, and excludes, among others, switchboard operators. The eligibility dispute among the parties, now to be resolved on the basis of both hearings, relates to nine employees. Five of these are electricians, whom the Employer and the Intervenor would exclude on the ground that their assignment to electrical work is only temporary. The other four are classified as electricians, but the Petitioner urges their exclu- sion on the ground that in fact they do not perform clerical work. 1. The five assertedly temporary employees, currently assigned as "temporary" Class C electricians, have held these positions for a long time. As of the date of the second hearing, three had been electricians more than 11/2 years, another for nearly that long, and the fifth for 97 NLRB No. 89. 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD almost a year . Some of them are part of the electrical crew working directly on new construction, and two are filling vacancies created'by the transfer of other electricians to construction work. All of them were originally hired into departments other than the maintenance, department, where they now work. These employees are classified as "temporary" because they changed jobs in connection with a plant expansion program at Winslow early in 1950. At that time the Employer agreed with the Intervenor to assign extra electricians for only 3 months. In April 1950 the agree- ment was extended to cover certain itemized jobs. The record also shows that the plant changed from a b- to a 6-day production week a little over a year ago. The Employer was unable to indicate when either the new construction or the longer workweek would terminate. Its business manager testified that he thought the new construction will continue for 90 days at least, but he would not venture a guess beyond that point, saying that the decision was up to the Employer's board of directors. He asserted generally that, although the duration of the longer workweek depends on the Employer's future business level, the extra electricians will not be needed when the new construction ceases. However, he stated at another point that the job of one of these em- ployees is due directly to the longer workweek. In view of the continuing nature of the Employer's plant expansion activities and the absence of any evidence that the Employer will remove the electricians from their present jobs at any predictable time in the near future, we find that they are as much a part of the bargain- ing unit of electricians as other employees whose title does not include the label "temporary." Accordingly, we find that they are eligible to vote in the election. 2. The remaining employees whose eligibility is disputed are classi- fied by the Employer as electricians and work at the Madison plant. Contrary to the other parties, the Petitioner contends that they are switchboard operators, rather than electricians, and therefore that they fall into the class excluded in the unit description. The main tasks of these employees are to keep a constant watch over the genera- tors, water wheels, and switchboard room, and the water pumps nearby. This involves taking hourly readings of the switchboard meters, and inspecting, starting, and oiling the pumps. They also occasionally assist a regular maintenance electrician who is on duty at the plant during the day. Finally, they make minor electrical repairs, such as changing fuses, placing circuit breakers, and trouble shooting on light lines and motor circuits. All other electrical jobs fre considered major and are left for the maintenance electrician. (All parties agree that the sole maintenance electrician at the Madison plant is included in the unit.) Such electrical work as is performed by the disputed employees occupies only 10 percent of their time during the day shift STATIONERS CORPORATION 601 and only 10 to 50 percent of their time on the other two shifts. The latter estimates, however, include the time necessary for the main- tenance of water pumps, which are electrically powered. One sub- stitutes for the maintenance electrician at the Madison plant on the latter's day off each week, and also serves as "utility man" 1 day each week, doing both electrical and mechanical maintenance. These employees are not covered by any apprenticeship program, and it does not appear that they are required to possess any high degree of electrical skill. Certainly, their duties do not require them to exercise the gamut of skills usually required of maintenance electri- cians. Moreover, most of their time is spent in nonelectrical work of the type ordinarily performed by switchboard operators, who are excluded from the voting group of skilled electrical craftsmen here being considered. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that, de- spite the job title applied to these employees by the Employer, their duties do not warrant their inclusion in the voting group described in the original decision. Accordingly, we find that they are not eligible to vote in the election .1 [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MEMBERS MURDOCK and STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Second Direction of Election. 1 Armstrong Cork Company, 89 NLRB 296 ; Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Con- centratting Company, 89 NLRB 243, 249 ; National Distillers Products Corporation, 84 NLRB 818. STATIONERS CORPORATION and WAREHOUSE, PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 26, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION, PETITIONER. Case No. 31-RC--1375. De- cember 19) 1951 Decision, Direction, and Order On July 14, 1950, an election was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for certification upon consent election, dated July 7, 1950. Following the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that, of the 90 eligible voters, 38 cast ballots for the Petitioner, 41 cast ballots against the Petitioner, and 11 ballots were challenged. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re- sults of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on September 15, 1950, issued and served upon the parties a report on challenged 97 NLRB No. 86.