A. O. Smith Corp. of Texas

216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to render forfeit the rights of these employees to a voice in determining their bargaining representative. We would therefore process the petition to an election. A. O. SMITH CORPORATION OF TEXAS and HOUSTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC-405. May 20,1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Y. Latimer, 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 power in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons:' The Petitioner seeks to sever, in the face of a history of collective bargaining for a production and maintenance unit, a group consisting of all nonsupervisory maintenance department employees, excluding electricians already represented in a separate craft unit by another union. Alternatively the Petitioner would represent as a single unit all nonsupervisory employees in the machine shop and mechanical maintenance departments.2 The Employer and the Intervenor, Local 4446, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, contend that both pro- posed units are inappropriate upon the grounds (1) that either unit would constitute a heterogeneous grouping of multicraft and unskilled employees; (2) that the history of bargaining for a production and maintenance unit precludes the severance of a departmental unit; (3) that equally skilled craftsmen are employed in the production de- a In view of our finding as to the unit issue in this case, we deem it unnecessary to rule on the Employer's and Intervenor's contention that their current contract constitutes a bar to the proceeding. See Capitol Chair Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 1374. 2 Either alternative group would include in addition to machinists , machine repairmen and their helpers, employees classified as pipefitters , welders, oilers, pump operators, chip- men, janitors, sweepers, and laborers. 99 NLRB No. 51. 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 .3 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' 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. ® United States Pipe & Foundry Company, 87 NLRB 115. ' See Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 96 NLRB 1128. 'MARBLE CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY ANIT VICINITY, ET AL.1 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 I 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. 2 International Association of Marble, Slate and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, ALF, herein termed the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of an adequate showing of interest. 99 NLRB No. 49.