The Hertner Electric Co.

THE HERTNER ELECTRIC COMPANY 567, only appropriate unit, and that, as the Petitioner's limited unit covers only one Employers Group member, it is therefore inappropriate: From 1932 to the formal incorporation of the Employer Group in 1946, its members, through a committee, negotiated with the Inter- venor the terms of separate but identical contracts covering inside and outside employees, respectively, of all members, including the Em- ployer. These contracts, so negotiated, have uniformly been ratified by the membership and separately signed by the individual members. Since 1946 the members have continued this group bargaining pro- cedure through the medium of the formally incorporated Employers Group.2 On the basis of this. 20-year history of collective bargaining for all inside employees between the Intervenor and members of the Em- ployers Group, including the Employer, we find that a unit confined only to the truck drivers and warehousemen of the Employer is too limited in scope to constitute an appropriate unit3, For this reason, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in the instant case be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. 2 An exception to this otherwise uniform bargaining pattern is noted with respect to Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, one of the Employers Group members , which, although it has contracted for inside employees in the same manner as the other members,, currently contracts with the Petitioner respecting drivers. This variance appears to be due to the fact that the operations of this member are on a larger scale and more diversified than those of the other employer members . Cf. Furniture Employers' Council of Southern California, Inc., and Member Employers , 96 NLRB 1002. 8 Bryant's Marina, Inc., et at., 92 NLRB 718, 720; Whiz Fish Products Company, 94 NLRB 1303; Al Lerman Motors, Inc., 98 NLRB 724. THE HERTNER ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, CIO , PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1608. June 9, 1952 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 Charles A. Fleming, hearing officer. 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 1 finds : i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 99 NLRB No. 85. 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 represen- tation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 735, herein called the Intervenor, and the Employer urge their current contract as a bar to this proceeding.2 The contract executed August 23, 1951, covers the Employer's employees employed at their Cleveland, Ohio, plant, hereinafter referred to as plant 1. This pro- ceeding is limited to the employees employed at the Employer's Bed- ford, Ohio, plant, hereinafter referred to as plant 2. Occupancy of this plant occurred in September of 1951 and full operations com- menced in November 1951, when a full employee complement was hired. As the Intervenor's contract was made before the inception of the operations of plant 2, we find that it is not a bar to this proceeding.3 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees employed at the Bed- ford, Ohio, plant (No. 2), excluding supervisors, time-study men, salaried and general office employees, guards, and professional em- ployees as defined in the Act. The parties are in agreement as to the composition of the unit, but disagree as to the appropriateness of a single or multiplant unit, the Intervenor and Employer contending that only a unit composed of plants 1 and 2 employees is appropriate. Plant 1, which has been operating since 1926, manufactures large motors, generators, and motor generators. Plant 2, which is located about 20 miles from plant 1, produces small subfractional motors, and for this reason, as opposed to plant 1, it operates on a production basis using less highly skilled workmen. The plant superintendent, who is in charge of plant 2, is responsible for all the operations of that plant. He has the authority to hire and discharge plant 2 personnel. Employees at plant 2 are recruited from the immediate local area. All necessary materials are shipped directly to plant 2, and its finished products are shipped directly to customers. There is no interchange of employees between the two plants. Each plant maintains its own seniority lists, the job classifications being different and noninterchangeable because of the dissimilar activities 8 Since for the reasons stated hereinafter , we find no contract bar, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the petitioner's contentions that the contract is illegal because of an alleged preferenial hiring clause or that a schism exists. 3 Sinclair Refining Company, 92 NLRB 643. THE HERTNER ELECTRIC COMPANY 569 carried on at each plant. The wage rate set forth in the Intervenor's contract does not apply to plant 2. The employees in plant 1 have been represented by the Intervenor since 1941. The Intervenor had organized a temporary shop committee at plant 2 sometime in January of 1952 which met with the Employer to negotiate a permanent wage scale for plant 2. The two shop committees are separately elected in each plant and meet separately with the Employer. Negotiations have ceased pending this proceeding. Both plants are under the general operational supervision of a production managed who has offices in plant 1, and all accounting, payrolls, purchasing, advertising, production scheduling, and labor relations policies are controlled by management officials who maintain their offices in plant 1. While some factors present in this case indicate the appropriateness of a two-plant unit, they are not so compelling as to require our holding that no other unit is appropriate. The Board normally permits new employees at a new plant to have a voice in the determination as to . whether or not they shall be separately represented apart from em- ployees at other plants of the Employer .4 We believe, therefore, upon the record in this case, including the geographical separation between the two plants, the lack of personnel interchange, and the fact that there is virtually no history of bargaining on a multiplant basis, that the proposed bargaining unit of employees at the Bedford, Ohio, plant, may also be appropriate, depending upon the results of the election hereinafter directed. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting group : All employees employed at the Bedford, Ohio, plant, excluding time-study men, salaried and general office employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit as described in the voting group, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event the majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to become part of the unit at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, operations now represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will certify the results of the election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] See Southwest Truck Body Co., 93 NLRB 1341.