Pabco Products, Inc.

PABCO PRODUCTS, INC. 281 sentatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in such groups, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If, on the other hand, a majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote for the Sheet Metal Workers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor organization for this group, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be a separate unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Similarly, if a majority of the employees in either voting group (a) or voting group (b) select a labor organization which is not selected by a majority of the employees in the other voting group, the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in each of these groups, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the event that the employees in either or both of these voting groups do not select any labor organization, the Regional Di- rector conducting the elections herein is instructed to issue a certificate of results of election with respect to such voting group or groups. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] PABCO PRODUCTS, INC. and LOCAL 68, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT- ING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-R61-17,01. Novem- ber13,1952 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 M. Levine, 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-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 certain employees of the Employer. 101 NLRB No. 88. 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The Petitioner demanded recognition of the Employer as bar- gaining representative by letter dated August 14, 1952, and the peti- tion herein was filed with the Board on August 25, 1952. The Em- ployer and Intervenors, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, and its Local 702, AFL, are parties to a col- lective-bargaining agreement covering the Employer's production and maintenance employees for the term October 15, 1950, to October 14, 1953, and automatically renewable each year thereafter in the ab- sence of prior notice by either party to change the contract.' The Intervenors claim that this contract is a bar to the petition. We do not agree with Intervenors' contention. In the absence of custom in the industry, a contract is presumed to be of reasonable du- ration and therefore a bar to a representation petition only during the first 2 years of its existence. Although evidence was introduced to the effect that other employers in the area had executed collective-bar- gaining agreements for a term of over 2 years, these employers are not engaged in the same industry as the Employer in this case. In these circumstances, we believe that the Intervenors have failed to demon- strate a custom of 3-year contracts sufficient to rebut the presumption that such contracts are of unreasonable duration. Accordingly, the contract in question does not bar a present determination of represent- fttives.2 We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation 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 wishes to sever a unit of steam plant operators from the existing unit of employees at the Employer's Metuchen, New Jersey, plant. The Intervenors oppose the severance of these em- ployees, and the Employer, although indicating it prefers to have only one union at its plant, takes no position. 1 Section XXVII, entitled "Duration of Agreement," reads In part as follows : This Agreement shall be effective October 15 , 1950, and continue In full force and effect up to and including October 14, 1953. The Agreement shall be considered renewed from year to year thereafter between the respective parties unless either party hereto shall give written notice to the other of its desire to change , modify, or cancel the same sixty (60) days prior to the expiration, provided, however, that either party may reopen sixty ( 60) days prior to October 15, 1951 and/or sixty (60) days prior to October 1952 for the sole and only purpose of submitting proposed change or changes In the straight time hourly rate column of Appendix A. 3Interstate Brick Co., 91 NLRB 1428 ; Paraffine Companies, Inc., 85 NLRB 325. The Intervenors also contend (1) that even if the Board finds that the contract is a bar for only a 2-year period, the contract, nevertheless, is automatically renewed at the end of the 2-year period , and (2 ) that the petition was not timely filed with respect to the automatic renewal date because it was not filed within 10 days of the demand for recognition. See General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 NLRB 997. As the contract clearly is for a term of 3 years (see footnote 1, supra), we reject Intervenors' first contention as being without merit. In view of this determination, the General Electric X-Ray problem posed In Intervenors' second contention Is not here involved. In the instant case it is sufficient that the petition was timely filed with respect to the end of the second year of the contract. PABCO PRODUCTS, INC. 283 The steam plant, located in a building in the center of the Employ- er's plant and completely separate from the other buildings, generates steam for the Employer's manufacturing operations. Four steam plant operators and one lead steam plant operators licensed by the State of New Jersey to operate steam-heating equipment, work in the plant three shifts a day, 7 days a week, in such a manner that there are always two men on the day shift, and one employee on each night shift. These employees operate and maintain the steam plant boiler and auxiliary equipment, observe feed water safety precautions, make mechanical boiler repairs, and generally follow New Jersey State re- quirements for proper operation and condition. In addition to the above duties in the steam plant itself, the em- ,ployee who happens to be the second employee on the day shift takes care of two water wells located on the plant property, cooling towers for the plant, and occasionally performs maintenance work on asphalt- heating equipment. However, this employee spends only 10 percent of his working time in this outside work. On a few occasions, this employee also does maintenance work on steam hammers throughout the plant. Occasionally, work in the steam plant, such as summer overhauling of boilers, has been performed by maintenance employees. Also, approximately 5 percent of the mechanical boiler repairs have been effected by maintenance mechanic. It is clear that the steam plant operators are a distinct homogeneous and functionally coherent group of a type which the Board has fre- quently accorded the right to sever from a broader unit. The fact that the steam operating engineers occasionally work on equipment located outside the steam plant does not destroy this distinctive com- munity of interest' Moreover, contrary to Intervenors' contention, the record fails to reveal an integration of the powerhouse employees with the production processes sufficient to render the requested unit inappropriate. Accordingly, we find that the steam operating en- gineers may, if they so desire, constitute a separate bargaining units and we shall direct an election in the following voting group : All steam operating engineers at the Employer's Metuchen, New Jersey, steam plant, including the lead steam operating engineer, but exclud. ing supervisors as defined in the Act. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Peti- tioner, they will be taken to have indicated that they desire to consti- I The parties stipulated that this employee is not a supervisor as defined in the Act. 4 See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 85 NLRB 1519. 5Blatz Brewing Company, 94 NLRB 1277 ; Collins Manufacturing Company, 81 NLRB 267. 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tute 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 the unit described above, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenors, they may continue to be represented as a part of the existing production and maintenance unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] BRIGGS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC- 1659. November 13, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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 organization involved claims 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 represent a unit of all office and clerical employees at the Employer's Mack Avenue plant in Detroit, Michigan. The Employer contends that only a multiplant unit, including employees at all its Detroit plants, is appropriate. The Employer, a manufacturer of automobile bodies and parts and plumbing fixtures, has its general offices, eight plants, and a garage in ' The Petitioner's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties. 101 NLRB No. 68.