W. H. Anderson Co., Inc.

820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed here- in is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Peti- tioner, or the UE, for the unit described above which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the IUE, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Direc- tor will issue .a certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] W. H. ANDERSON Co., INC. and MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1685. June 19, 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 William E. Rhodes, 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 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]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, the Intervenor herein, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their current contract is a bar to the petition for manufacturing department em- ployees filed herein. We do not agree. This contract, executed after a consent election on March 5, 1951, and renewed on January 10, 1952, covers "all employees engaged in maintenance, installation, and repair .of construction machinery and equipment." Manufacturing depart- ment employees have not been bargained for under this contract, nor is there any evidence that the contracting parties intended, either at the time the contract was made or when it was renewed, to embrace them within its terms. Indeed, the manufacturing department, as such, was not in existence when the original contract was executed. Although approximately 25 employees were doing this type of work at the time of the consent election, only 1 of them was placed on the eligibility list and permitted to vote in the election. Accordingly, 99 NLRB No.. 127. -W. H. ANDERSON CO., INC. 821 we find the existing contract is not a bar to the present proceeding limited to manufacturing-department employees.' A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner requests a unit of employees in the manufacturing department at the Employer's Detroit, Michig'a'n,, industrial Iriachin- ery plant. 'The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the only, appropriate, unit is a plant-wide unit composed of all employees' engaged in the manufacture, maintenance, installation, and repair` of construction machinery and equipment. As noted above, manufacturing department employees have not been included in the general unit established by the Intervenor. They might properly be included in that unit or, on the special facts in this case, constitute a separate bargaining group. We shall conduct an election among these employees to determine their desires with respect to representation at this time. We shall make herein no final unit determination, but shall first ascertain the desires of the em- ployees, as expressed in the election to be conducted in the voting group described below : All employees in the manufacturing department at the Employer's Detroit, Michigan, industrial machinery plant, including the watch- man,2 but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, pro- fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of employees in this voting group cast ballots for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be bargained for as part of the larger unit which the Intervenor presently represents, which, under these circumstances, we find appropriate. If, however, a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, which under these circumstances we find appropriate. If a majority of employees vote for neither, the petition will be dismissed. Accordingly, the Regional Director shall certify the results of the election. 5. The Petitioner would include among those eligible to vote, and the Employer would exclude, three employees who worked regularly 9 months during the past year and are presently employed, but who work only on special assignments. As regular part-time employees, we find that they are eligible to vote.3 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] ' Victor Electric Products, Inc, 73 NLRB 373; H3-Way Lumber Company, 87 NLRB 468; General Electric Supply Corporation, 83 NLRB 1135. 2 One watchman in the manufacturing department spends approximately 25 percent of his time performing watchman duties. He is not employed as a guard within the mean- ing of the Act. Wiley Mfg. Inc, 92 NLRB 40. Wtlcon Athletic Goods Manufacturing Co , Inc., 76 NLRB 315. 215233-53-53