Mesta Machine Co.

1 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cumstances , the Board ordinarily does not order animmediate election .6 Even assuming , therefore , that because of the unsettled conditions at the Morgantown plants , the three-plant unit proposed by the Petitioner is appropriate , we would nevertheless not direct an election now. Accordingly , because the unit requested is in the process of definite and imminent substantial expansion , we shall dismiss the petition without prejudice to the subsequent filing of another petition at a more appropriate time. [The, Board dismissed the petition.] 6 Coast Pacific Lumber Co., 78 NLRB 1245 ; A. O. Smith Corp. (Air Frame Component Division), 100 NLRB 1379; Individual Drinking Cup Co., Inc., 101 NLRB 1751. MESTA MACHINE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, Petitioner . Case No. 6-RC-1291 . July 13, 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 Joseph C. Thackery, 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 Murdock, 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 representcer- tain 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 Petitioner seeks to represent aunit of all bricklayers, bricklayer helpers , and apprentices employed by the Employer. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate for the reasons set forth below . The employees involved are engaged in the construction, maintenance , and repair of bricklinings and other brickwork used by the Employer in the process of manufacturing steel and steel products at its plant in West Homestead , Pennsylvania . The bricklayers possess and exercise craft skills , acquired after a 4-year apprenticeship. There is no history of collective bargaining for these em- ployees. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate because of the integrated nature of the Employer ' s operations, because the bricklayers are engaged in a program of replacing and repairing equipment on regularly succeeding occasions and 106 NLRB No. 16. MESTA MACHINE COMPANY 113 because of the community of interest and working conditions between the bricklayers and the production employees. In this connection the Employer relies on the National Tube case ,' in which the Board declined to sever a group of brick- layers from a long -established plantwide unit in a plant which was part of the basic steel industry . In that case the Board stressed the following factors: (1) The history of industrial bargaining in the basic steel industry and in the plant involved in that case. (2) The fact that the bricklayers were engaged in a definite program of making replacements and repairs on regularly succeeding occasions , of instrumentalities used in the con- tinuous production of basic steel. (3) The similarity between the working conditions of the bricklayers and the steel production employees , including their participation in a common job -evaluation plan. While factor ( 3) appears to be present in the instant case, it is clear that as to ( 1) the Board found in a previous case in- volving the same Employer that, although it was engaged in the manufacture of various steel products , it was not a part of the basic steel industry .' The Employer does not here renew the contention , rejected in that case , that it is part of the basic steel industry or that the history of industrial bargaining in that industry precludes a finding that the craft unit here sought is appropriate . It is clear , also, that, unlike the situation in National Tube , there has been no history of bargaining for the Employer' s employees on a plantwide basis . Nor does any union now seek to represent the bricklayers as part of a broader unit. As to factor ( 2), while the record contains a statement by a representative of management that the bricklayers are engaged in a program of making replacements and repairs on regular succeeding occasions , the record also shows that at least 70 percent of their time is in making emergency repairs, which are not prescheduled. In view of the foregoing , and upon the entire record , we find that there is insufficient basis for applying the doctrine of the National Tube case to the instant case. The Employer contends also that in any event the helpers should be excluded from the proposed unit. The helpers work only for the bricklayers . They assist the bricklayers by trans- porting tools and materials to the work site , mixing mortar, carrying mortar, bricks , and other materials to. the bricklayer and doing other tasks incidental to the bricklayer ' s work. We shall, in accordance with Board practice, include the helpers in the unit.3 Accordingly we find that all bricklayers , bricklayer helpers, and apprentices at the Employer ' s West Homestead , Pennsyl- 'National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199 2 Mesta Machine Company, 94 NLRB 1624. In that case, the Board found appropriate a unit of patternmakers in the instant plant . The record does not show whether there has since that decision been any bargaining for patternmakers. 3See The Standard Register Co , 101 NLRB 744; The Kroger Co., 103 NLRB 210. 1 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD vania, plant , excluding all other employees , guards, and super- visors 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 omitted from publication.] Member Peterson , concurring: The record in this case discloses that the bricklayers con- stitute an identifiable , homogeneous group of craftsmen; that there is no history of their inclusion in a broader unit; and that the type of integration found in the National Tube case 4 does not exist here. None of the factors to which I referred in my dissent in the Hamilton cases as bases for finding a craft group an inappropriate unit are present . Accordingly , I agree with my colleagues that an election should be directed for the bricklayers. 4 Footnote 1, supr. 5 W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627. NEBEL KNITTING COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS , AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 11- RC-496 . July 13, 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 Sidney J. Barban , 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 , Murdock, and Peter- son]. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged incommerce withinthe meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to representcer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer withinthe meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit: The parties agree that a unit of production and maintenance employees is appropriate , but disagree as to the composition of the unit. The Petitioner , in opposition to the Employer, would exclude fixers , the maintenance fixer-learner , foreman-fixers, the foreladies in the.finishing and inspecting , mending , greige goods inspecting , and packing departments , the head dyer, the 106 NLRB No. 11.