Marble Contractors' Association of Allegheny County and Vicinity, et al.

MARBLE CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY 217 partments; and (4) that in any event the continuous process type of operation at this plant mitigates against separate units. We do not agree that either the degree of integration in this indus- try or the history of collective bargaining on a broader basis neces- sarily precludes the establishment of separate craft units.' As indi- cated above, electricians at this plant are presently represented in a separate craft unit. However, the Board has consistently refused to sever multicraft or departmental groups from a preexisting produc- tion and maintenance unit.4 Accordingly, assuming without deter- mining that the employees sought to be represented are craft in char- acter, we find, in view of the request for the inclusion of employees from unrelated crafts, that the proposed unit is multicraft and there- fore inappropriate. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3 United States Pipe & Foundry Company, 87 NLRB 115. * See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 96 NLRB 1128. MARBLE CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY AND VICINITY, ET AL.' and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS of AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 6-RC-1027. May 20, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor 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, Styles, and Peterson]. 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.2 1 In addition to the Association , the following members of the Association are parties to this proceeding : Nick Battista, d/b/a Nick Battista Marble Works ; Louis Battista, d/b/a Louis Battista Marble Works ; Pittsburgh Marble Company ; Ramps, Marble & Tile Company, Inc. ; Raymond Volpatt ; and Angela E. Chirichigno , d/b/a Columbia Marble Company. 1 International Association of Marble , Slate and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, ALP, herein termed the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of an adequate showing of interest. 99 NLRB No. 49. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 seeks an association-wide unit of all shop or in- side employees at the Employer's Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, opera- tions. Although the Employer and the Intervenor agree as to the association-wide scope of the unit, they would also include in the unit all outside employees, other than marble setters. The Employer companies are engaged in manufacturing, selling, and installing marble and similar products. Their employees fall within 2 general groups : (1) About 32 inside workers, classified as sawyers, rubbing bed operators, machine polishers, hand polishers, and laborers, who prepare and process the marble into products such as sills, mantels, and the like; and (2) outside workers, consisting of about 16 marble setters and 17 helpers and apprentices, who perform various types of marble installation work. The inside and outside workers perform essentially different types of work under separate immediate supervision. Interchange is limited to slack periods, when usually the lesser skilled employees of one group assist the other group, and to times when marble setter apprentices work inside during a portion of their apprenticeship. The duties of the inside employees are generally confined to the shop, while those of the outside employees are usually performed at the installation site. Bargaining for the marble setters, whom the parties agree should be excluded, and the other outside employees, has been conducted on a basis separate from the inside employees for many years .3 On June -23, 1950, following the Board decision in Columbia Marble Company, 89 NLRB 1482, in which the composition of the unit was agreed to by the parties, the Intervenor, which won the election, was certified as bargaining representative of the inside employees .4 However, no bargaining agreement was executed covering these employees 5 Under all the circumstances, including the separate bargaining history covering the outside employees and the essentially different nature of their work, we believe that the interests of the inside em- ployees are divergent from those of the outside workers and we shall exclude the latter employees from the unit .6 ' Local 33, Stone and Marble, Terrazzo and Tuck Pointers Union, Bricklayers , Masons & Plasterers' International Union of America, AFL, has represented the marble setters, and the Intervenor has represented the apprentices and helpers. 4 The Employer's witness testified that there has been no change in the Employer's method of operations since the Board decision in the Columbia Marble Company case, supra. ' On April 16, 1951 , Local 14 of the Intervenor submitted a contract to the Employer covering all the Employer's employees, but the agreement was never signed. Separate bargaining for the outside employees continued thereafter. ' See York Corporation, 87 NLRB 613. Also see McCann Steel Company, 94 NLRB No. 65. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 219 Accordingly, we find that all inside employees at the Employer's Pittburgh, Pennsylvania; operations, excluding office, clerical, pro- fessional, and outside employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text 'of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY and CLIFFORD W. SCHMITz, JR., PETITIONER, and ELECTRIC UTILITIES UNION OF WASHINGTON, D. C.11 Case No. 5-RD-66. May 00, 1959 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition for decertification duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David C. Sachs, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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, Murdock, 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Union, a labor organization, is the currently recognized representative of the employees in question. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. 'The Petitioner seeks to have the Union decertified as the bar- gaining representative of all engineer A's, assistant engineers, junior engineers, cost engineer A's, assistant cost engineers, junior cost engineers, and engineer-surveyor. The Petitioner contends, and the Union denies, that employees in the above categories are professional employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act, and that such employees together constitute an appropriate unit separate from the unit covered by the Union's contract with the Employer? The Employer takes no position in this matter. I The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing. 2 There is no contention that the contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding. 99 NLRB No. 29. r