Great Lake Pipeline Co.

142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Employer. Dated -------------------- By --------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Appendix B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 501, CIO, ALL EMPLOYEES OF BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause BELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, its officers, agents , successors, or assigns , to refuse to promote to supervision an employee while charges are pending against him in the union. WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL withdraw any objection to the promotion to supervision of Melvin Finch and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNI'[7F:1) AITTOMMOL'I..E, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL, IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL, 501, CIO, Labor Organizati m,. Dated ------------------ By ---------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Tide) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the ,date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. GREAT LAKES PIPELINE COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 348, PETITIONER . Case No. 17-RC-1422. Oc- tober 29,1952 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 Eugene Hoffman, 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 finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 101 NLRB No. 45. GREAT LAKES PIPELINE COMPANY 143 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion 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 seeks to represent all employees of the Employer classified as "maintenizers" employed at the Employer's terminal operations. The record reveals that the maintenizers have previously been excluded from a unit of the Employer's production and main- tenance employees currently represented by the Petitioner on a system- wide basis. At the hearing the Petitioner indicated that it desired to represent the maintenizers as part of the existing unit. Alter- natively, it indicated that it would be willing to represent them in a separate unit. The Employer took no position as to the appropriate- ness of a unit including both maintenizers and production and main- tenance employees. It contended, however, that no election should be directed among the maintenizers because these employees as a group do not constitute an appropriate unit. It appears from the record that the maintenizers are, in effect, less skilled substitutes for the regular mechanics and electricians working out of the Employer's district headquarters. When the latter are not available, the maintenizers maintain and repair the electrical and mechanical equipment at the various terminals. Although some of the maintenizers may have had electrical or mechanical engineering training, the record indicates that others have been employed in that capacity without previous experience. We find that the maintenizers are essentially maintenance employees. While they do not constitute a separate appropriate unit for bargaining purposes, we believe that they may, if they so desire, be represented as part of the existing system-wide bargaining unit.' We shall therefore direct an election among the following em- ployees : All maintenizers employed at the Employer's terminals lo- cated in Kansas City, Kansas; Des Moines, Iowa; Mason City, Iowa; Mankato, Minnesota ; Minneapolis, Minnesota ; Iowa City, Iowa ; Chi- cago, Illinois; Omaha, Nebraska; Sioux City, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Watertown, South Dakota; Alexandria, Minnesota; Fargo, North Dakota; and Grand Forks, North Dakota; excluding all other employees, professional employees, guards, and all super- visors as defined in the Act. I Great Lakes Pipeline Company, 92 NLRB 583 In view of the majority opinion in that case, we find no merit in the Employer's contention that the Board is without authority to direct an election among the maintenizers to determine whether they desire representa- tion as pact of the existing system-wide unit. Although Board Member Murdock dissented to that case, he con,iders himself bound by the majority decision 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If the majority of the employees in the above voting group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be part of the over-all system-wide operating and maintenance unit, and the Petitioner may bargain for such employees as part of the existing unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. HAL W. PADGETT, J. D. PADGETT AND MRS. E. R. MCDUFF, D/B/A PADG- ETT PRINTING AND LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 35, CIO and DALLAS PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS, LOCAL UNION No. 56, AFL, PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 16-RC-9. 9 and 16-R6-958.-October 29, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon petitions duly filed 1 under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Willis C. Darby, Jr., hearing officer.2 The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. 1 We find no merit in the Employer' s contention that the petitions are invalid because no specific amount was placed in the spaces provided in the petition form for indicating the number of employees supporting each petition ; and no answer was given , with respect to one of the petitions, that a request for recognition was made to the Employer. These technical defects, which were remedied before or during the hearing and which did not prejudice the Employer, constitute no ground for dismissal. Petco Corporation, New Orleans Division, 98 NLRB 150; Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29. 2 The Employer contends that the assignment of the hearing officer to this investigation violated the Administrative Procedure Act (Public Law 404, 79th Cong., Chap. 324; 5 U. S. C. A., See 1001, et seq ). We find no merit in this contention, as section 5 of that act does not apply to the instant representation proceedings Accordingly, the conduct of the hearing by an individual who has not qualified as a hearing examiner under section 5 (c) of that act was not improper. Cf. Nicholson Transit Company, 89 NLRB 1278. 3 We reject the Employer's claim that the hearing officer was biased in limiting the Employer's cross-exanrination of a witness. The record shows that the hearing officer curtailed such cross -examination in order to limit the testimony to relevant matters. His ruling was therefore proper. See Ravenna Arsenal, Inc., 98 NLRB 1. Nor do we agree with the Employer that the hearing officer improperly denied its request for a continuance to permit preparation on the issue of the inclusion or exclusion of certain job classifications from the appropriate unit. In this regard, the record shows that the Employer had full opportunity to present all relevant evidence in support of its position on this issue, and that it did in fact present such evidence . The De Laval Separator Company, 97 NLRB 544; Blatz Brewing Company, 94 NLRB 1277. 101 NLRB No. 27.