Key System Transit Lines

526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD likewise man the Employer ' s tugs. We find that these employees have a sufficient interest in the terms and conditions of employment to be included in a unit of shop employees.4 It is clear , therefore , that the employees in the proposed unit are not a readily identifiable and homogeneous group apart from the other employees . The only basis for finding the requested unit to be appropriate would be the extent of the Petitioner ' s organization among the employees , which we are forbidden to do by Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act: As the Peti- tioner has not made a sufficient showing of interest for a unit of shop employees that would include the employees in the scow as well as those who occasionally man the Employer's tugs,6 we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 4Ocala Star Banner . 97 NLRB 384 Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc , 100 NLRB 1351 5Breman Steel Company, 93 NLRB 720. 6As stated in footnote 2, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon other disputed cate- gories KEY SYSTEM TRANSIT LINES and INTERNATIONAL ASSO- CIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL LODGE NO. 1546, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-1721. June 11, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held on November 17 through 20, 1952, before Robert V. Magor, hearing officer; thereafter , pursuant to a remand order of the Board , a further hearing was held before him on March 26 and 27, 1953. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the respective hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case , 2 the Boardfinds: 1. The Company is licensed by the Public Utilities Com- mission of the State of California to operate a public transporta- tion system in the Oakland -San Francisco Bay area , carrying passengers by motorbus and electric train, which includes an appreciable amount of service to and from military installations, railroad stations , an airport , and plants of other employers heretofore found by the Board to be engaged in commerce. We find , upon these facts and the record generally , that the Em- 1 The Petitioner objects to a ruling of the hearing officer which required the Petitioner to conform the evidence presented at the reopened hearing to the Board's order of remand, con- tending that this ruling imposed an undue burden upon the Petitioner in the presentation of relevant facts. In our opinion the ruling was proper and not prejudicial as it merely precluded repetition of evidence adduced previously at the initial hearing. Viewing both hearings to- gether, we are satisfied that the Petitioner had full opportunity to present all relevant facts necessary for resolution of the issues herein. 2 The Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied, as the record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. 105 NLRB No. 68. KEY SYSTEM TRANSIT LINES 527 ployer operates a public transportation system having an important impact upon commerce , and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.6 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer.4 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act,5 for the following reasons: In the operation of its public transportation franchise, the Company employs approximately 1,625 employees , of whom some 350 maintain and repair vehicles , and the remainder of whom are engaged in various phases of operating vehicles, clerical work, supervision , and maintenance of fixed property assets. The Employer' s entire operation is divided into 7 departments , namely, instruction and safety , employment, purchasing and stores , ways and structures ( also called track ), electrical , operating , and equipment maintenance (vehi- cle maintenance ). Since 1948, Division 192 of the Intervenors has represented , in a single unit, the Employer ' s operating and maintenance employees ( roughly equivalent to the employees in the operating , purchasing and stores , ways and structures, and equipment maintenance departments ).6 The Petitioner seeks specifically to sever the equipment maintenance em- ployees and some purchasing and stores employees from the existing unit and leaves the severance of several employees in ways and structures to the discretion of the Board . As alter- native instruments for effecting severance , the Petitioner proposes 3 different types of units , namely, an overall mainte- nance unit , 3 separate departmental units (encompassing roughly all the motorcoach maintenance employees , the train maintenance employees , and the employees of purchasing and stores, respectively), or 10 individual craft units (encompassing all the vehicle maintenance employees , and including some purchasing and stores employees ). The Petitioner also seeks any other unit, or units, which the Boardmay find appropriate. We shall consider first the Petitioner ' s request for severance on a craft basis. The Petitioner proposes the establishment of the following 10 craft units : ( 1) Automotive machinists, their SHazel M. Cluff, an individual d/b/a Columbus-Celina Coach Lines, et al., 97 NLRB 777; W C. King d/b/a Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623 4The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 192, currently represents the employees sought by the Petitioner and appears herein as an intervenor in conjunction with its International affiliate; both of these organiza- tions are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Intervenors 5 The Employer and the Intervenors contend that a contract, to which they are parties and which relates to the employees here involved , is a bar to this proceeding. In the light of the findings hereinafter set forth , we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the merits of this con- tention. 6 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1245 , AFL, represents 36 employees in the electrical department , and Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Drivers, Local No. 70 , represents approximately 5 employees in the purchasing and stores depart- ment. None of the employees so represented are involved in this proceeding, and neither of these unions has entered an appearance. 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD helpers and apprentices; (2) automotive mechanics, their helpers and apprentices ; ( 3) auto body , fender, and radiator repairmen , their helpers and apprentices ; (4) automotive up- holstery men, their helpers and apprentices ; ? (5) parts men, their helpers and apprentices; (6) all machinists , their helpers and apprentices ; ( 7) all painters , their helpers and apprentices; (8) all blacksmiths , their helpers and apprentices ; ( 9) all sheet- metal men, their helpers and apprentices ; and (10 ) all residual classifications in the Company' s vehicle maintenance depart- ments.8 The Employer ' s vehicle maintenance work is performed at 5 different shops, and the employees in the Petitioner ' s respec- tive units work at 1 or more of these 5 geographically separated maintenance shops . There are separate lines of supervision for rail and automotive work, although all maintenance em- ployees are under a single seniority system and have sub- stantially identical working conditions and privileges . The Em- ployer informally trains the majority of employees for special- ized tasks, but at the present time has no formal apprentice program.9 Notwithstanding the similarity of skills required in the larger proposed craft units , such units conform generally to the type of vehicle under repair . Thus , automotive machinists, mechanics , and body men work exclusively on buses, while machinists and sheet -metal men work generally on trains; the blacksmiths and painters , consisting of personnel from both rail and automotive shops, work on both types of vehicles. Personnel in each of the proposed units, regardless of the vehicle involved, perform only limited and specialized portions of the total maintenance work on the particular vehicle under repair. On the basis of the entire record , including the above-related facts, we are not persuaded that the alleged appropriate units, or any combination of the individual employees included therein, constitute readily indentifiable and homogeneous craft groups of employees possessing the skills ' or characteristics whichthe Board recognizes as indispensable for severance from an operating and maintenance unit. With respect to the overall maintenance unit or three depart- mental units which the Petitioner seeks, we find , in view of the established bargaining history on a broader basis, that such limited bargaining units are inappropriate. it 7This unit consists of one employee, and for this reason, irrespective of other factors, we find this unit inappropriate Warren Paper Products Co , 93 NLRB 1187 s The Board's records disclose that the Petitioner represents an insufficient number of the employees in this unit to warrant an election, and for this reason, apart from any other cir- cumstances, the petition with respect to this unit must be dismissed. 9In 1946 the Company instituted an apprentice program in cooperation with the California State Apprenticeship Council, but this plan was discontinued in 1949 and only 3 of the ap- proximately 15 persons who entered the program completed the full indenture ioKimberly-Clark Corporation, 78 NLRB 478; Mt Hood Stages, Inc., d/b/a Pacific Trail- ways, 91 NLRB 559. FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION 529 Having found that none of the units sought is appropriate for severance , we shall, accordingly , dismiss the petition." [ The Board dismissed the petition]. Chairman Herzog took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. itln view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to rule upon other issues raised by the Employer and the Intervenors in their motions to dismiss. FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION and FEDERATION OF ARSENAL ENGINEERS , Petitioner . Case No. 18 -RC-1908. June 11, 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 Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer . The hearing officer's ruling 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 [Members Houston , Styles, and Peter- son]. 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 certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture of small arms ammunition at its Brightwater , Minnesota , plant. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of professional employees of the Employer consisting of production engineers, quality control engineers , engineers II and III, chemists I, II, and III , senior process engineers , senior planning engineers, section heads in the planning division, excluding maintenance contact men , guards , all other employees , and supervisors as defined by the Act. The Employer agrees that production engineers , quality control engineers , engineers II and III, and chemists I can appropriately constitute a unit of professional employees . It contends , however, that the contact maintenance men are also professional employees and should be included in such a unit . The Employer further claims that the senior planning engineer should be excluded from the unit because he is a managerial employee and that the chemists II and III, the 105 NLRB No. 62.