Schaffner Brothers Co.

1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act 14 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 11 The exclusions are pursuant to agreement of the parties. SCHAFFNER BROTHERS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS, LOCAL 249, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 6-RC-1188. February 4, 1953 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 Harold L. Hudson, 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 [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 Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer .2 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's power depart- ment employees, including engineers, firemen and maintenance men, but excluding all other employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors. At the hearing, however, the Petitioner stated that if the Board finds such a unit is inappropriate, it is willing to repre- sent the Employer's firemen and engineers in one unit, and the main- tenance mechanics in a separate unit. Both Intervenors contend that the Petitioner's requested unit is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Employer takes no position on the unit question. 1 At the hearing, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 859, AFL, herein called Local 859, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate. For the reasons stated herein, Local 859's motion to dismiss the petition is denied 2 Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 34, AFL, herein called Local 34, and Local 859, were permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of recently expired contracts with the Employer. 102 NLRB No. 92. SCHAFFNER BROTHERS COMPANY 1011 Local 34 has represented the Employer's production and mainte- nance employees, including the maintenance mechanics requested by the Petitioner, in a single unit. Its most recent contract with the Employer covering these employees expired on October 1, 1952. Local 859 has represented the Employer's engineers and firemen in a single unit. Its most recent contract with the Employer covering these em- ployees expired November 1, 1952. There are 4 firemen and 3 engineers who work under the supervi- sion of a chief engineer. They work in the powerhouse, separate from other company buildings, where they tend boilers, stokers, generators, water pumps, and compressors. All of these employees are licensed. The powerhouse is operated on a 24-hour basis, 1 fire- man and 1 engineer being on duty at all times. There are no transfers between the powerhouse employees and other departments at the plant. There are four employees classified as maintenance mechanics, who work under the separate supervision of a maintenance foreman. They work only during the day shift, in a shop building separate from other plant buildings. Maintenance mechanics perform all maintenance work in and about the plant premises, except the maintenance of motor vehicles. A considerable part of their work involves main- taining steam lines, and assisting the engineers and firemen in the maintenance and repair of powerhouse equipment. They also do carpentry work, steamfitting, painting, electrical repairs, plumbing, and general mechanical work. One of the mechanics is employed full time as a painter. They are not licensed. The maintenance mechanics do not appear to possess interests or exercise skills sufficiently related to those of the powerhouse em- ployees to warrant their inclusion in a single unit. Accordingly, we find that the multidepartmental unit sought by the Petitioner is in- appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Nor does the record indicate that the maintenance mechanics have the journeymen skills and duties which we require in order to grant severance. We therefore find that the maintenance mechanics do not constitute a true craft group, and we shall not direct an election among these employees.3 We find, however, that the firemen and engineers constitute a group such as the Board has generally accorded separate representa- tion.4 We shall therefore direct an election in this group. There remains for consideration the supervisory status of the chief engineer. The record shows that he has power effectively to recom- mend the hiring and discharge of the engineers and firemen, and may Cf. General Foods Corporation, 97 NLRB 1243. Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division, 96 NLRB 1075. 1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discipline them. We find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and therefore not eligible to vote in the election directed herein. We find that all engineers and firemen at the Employer's Erie, Penn- sylvania plant, excluding maintenance mechanics and all other em- ployees, office clerical, confidential and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election 5 omitted from publication in this volume.] ' Local 34 stated at the hearing that it did not desire to participate in any election which might be ordered in a unit which did not include the maintenance mechanics. ARNOLD STONE COMPANY OF N. C., INC. and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER. Cabe LVO. 11- RC-440. February 4, 1953 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein by the Board on October 29, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina). Upon conclusion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties by the Regional Director. The tally shows that of approximately 61 eligible voters, 58 cast ballots, of which 43 were for the Petitioner, 13 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. On November 18, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election. Thereafter, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on December 3, 1952, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, recommending that the objections be overruled and that the Peti- tioner be certified. On December 12, 1952, the Employer filed timely exceptions to report on objections and a supporting brief. The Peti- tioner filed a brief in support of the Regional Director's report. The facts upon which the objections are based are not disputed. The petition in this case was presented at the Board's Regional Office on September 11, but for clerical reasons was not docketed until the I Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 102 NLRB No. 98.