The Celotex Corp.

T1 1E CELOTEX CORPORATION 815 THE CELOTEX CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 501, AFL,' Peti- tioner. Case No. 21-RC-3049. June 29, 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 FredW. Davis, hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hear- ing 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, 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 cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep- resentation 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 to sever the steam engineers from a production and maintenance unit now represented by Inter- national Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, herein called the Intervenor. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only a production and maintenance unit is appropriate. The three steam engineers work in the boilerroom, and are solely con- cerned with the production of steam for the plant operations. All three have been employed in this capacity for many years. The boilerroom is physically separated from the remainder of the plant; it has a common wall with a supply area, but there is no passageway between it and the supply area. The steam engi- neers are licensed , as required by city ordinance , and no other employees perform their type of work. They have no imme- diate supervisor but are supervised by the plant superinten- dent , as are all other plant employees. We find, on the entire record , that the steam engineers con- stitute a distinct , homogeneous , and functionally coherent group such as the Board has consistently held may, if they so desire, constitute a separate bargaining unit despite their past inclusion in a broader bargaining unit: However, we make no present unit determination as to these employees untilwe have first ascertained their desires in the matter . If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Re- gional Director conducting the election directed herein is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the 1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Globe Steel Tubes Co , 101 NLRB 772. 105 NLRB No 125 8 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Petitioner for a unit of all steam engineers of the Employer, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, which the Board , under such circumstances , finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor , the Boardfinds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Peterson, dissenting: In view of the collective-bargaining history on a plantwide basis since 1938, and in the absence of any other factors war- ranting their severance from the established unit , I would not accord the steam engineers separate representation.3 3See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627. FLINTKOTE COMPANY, PIONEER DIVISION and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, LOCAL 501, Petitioner . Case No. 21 -RC-3057. June 29, 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 Fred W. Davis, 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 (Members Houston, 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.' 1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 2 The Employer and the Intervenor, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 598, AFL, refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. As the Petitioner exists in part, at least, for the purposes of representing employees and negotiating in their behalf regarding wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The Intervenor further objected to the amendment of the name of the Petitioner to substitute Local 501 for Local 63 which was named in the original petition, and also questioned the Petitioner's compliance status and showing of interest. Local 63 was merged with another local to form Local 501. We find that the hearing officer properly granted the motion to amend the petition to reflect this change. See Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation. 88 NLRB 437. The showing of interest and the fact of compliance by a labor organization which is required to comply, are matters for administrative determination and are not litigable by the parties. Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917. We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest and is in compliance. 105 NLRB No. 123.